[SimeyTheLimey]

There is an excellent article in today's Baltimore Sun by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. It's good to see at least one liberal actually thinking about the war on terror constructively.

The Laws of War Enable Terror.

By Alan M. Dershowitz

Originally published May 28, 2004



THE GENEVA Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Following World War II, in which millions of civilians were killed by armed forces, the international community strengthened the laws designed to distinguish between legitimate military targets and off-limit noncombatants. The line in those days was clear: The military wore uniforms, were part of a nation's organized armed forces, and generally lived in military bases outside of population centers. Noncombatants, on the other hand, wore civilian clothing and lived mostly in areas distant from the battlefields.

The war by terrorists against democracies has changed all this. Terrorists who do not care about the laws of warfare target innocent noncombatants. Indeed, their goal is to maximize the number of deaths and injuries among the most vulnerable civilians, such as children, women and the elderly. They employ suicide bombers who cannot be deterred by the threat of death or imprisonment because they are brainwashed to believe that their reward awaits them in another world. They have no "return address."

More:

[itai195]

Well you're aware he's a Jew, and a member of pro-Israel lobbies. There goes this thread... I can predict the responses

Anyway, I agree it seems there should be updates, with the amount of hair-splitting that's been going on regarding how to categorize terrorists.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's good to see at least one liberal actually thinking about the war on terror constructively.

Now what I'd like to see is at least one conservative doing the same.

I saw that too (we both must read Instapundit). I haven't read it yet, but there was a discussion a week or so ago, I forget which thread, where I took a look at the Geneva Conventions on POWs, and it sure seems like they legally get better treatment than even criminal suspects in the US. As I understand it, no coercive interrogation pressure can be used at all.

But here's what I think it was Troll said in response - that if they're really true soldiers in an army, they shouldn't be coercively interrogated, and if they're terrorists, the GC don't apply anyway.

[Developer]

I don't agree.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Now what I'd like to see is at least one conservative doing the same.

I saw that too (we both must read Instapundit). I haven't read it yet, but there was a discussion a week or so ago, I forget which thread, where I took a look at the Geneva Conventions on POWs, and it sure seems like they legally get better treatment than even criminal suspects in the US. As I understand it, no coercive interrogation pressure can be used at all.

But here's what I think it was Troll said in response - that if they're really true soldiers in an army, they shouldn't be coercively interrogated, and if they're terrorists, the GC don't apply anyway.

That's correct. If someone qualifies for POW status, they aren't criminals unless they are being separately investigated for war crimes. So naturally, they ought to be treated differently from a criminal. Except, of course, there are no appeals and they don't get released until the end of hostilities or until the power holding them decides to release them (such as in a prisoner exchange).

You have seen Troll and me going back and forth on the unlawful combatant issue. I think we agree that terrorists don't fit in to the definition in both the Geneva and Hague Conventions of who gets POW status. The disagreement is over whether that means they are civilians -- notwithstanding the fact they are obviously fighting as combatants -- or whether they are combatants who simply don't have the protection of POW status. I think the latter is the better view. The other view turns the purpose of the laws of war on their head. They make the law a shield for terrorists to hide behind, endangering civilians and law-abiding combatants. But putting terrorists into this no-status status leaves them in a void where there is no codified law at present. That's why we've been forced to make it up ad hoc. All there is in this area is customary law on dealing with spies and sabateurs -- but that authorizes summary execution, which probably isn't in tune with contemporary sensibilities. So you have confusion.

That is what I understand Dershowitz is proposing to clear up. He wants to bring the laws of war into line with reality and thereby ensuring that war will continue to be governed by law that has relevance but isn't a weapon for terrorists. It's long overdue.

[Developer]

Terrorists are criminals. There is no need to make up laws "ad hoc" for criminals because the law already exists. It's the criminal law. The Geneva Convention just simply doens't have anything to do with it. So there's no reason to change it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
Terrorists are criminals. There is no need to make up laws "ad hoc" for criminals because the law already exists. It's the criminal law. The Geneva Convention just simply doens't have anything to do with it. So there's no reason to change it.

So you capture a terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq and then he gets a defense attorney who gets him released because you didn't have a warrant for his arrest, didn't read him his Miranda rights and didn't have probable cause?

Or how about you know about a terrorist but he hasn't actually killed anyone yet so you can't arrest him. And you can't prove for certain he's plotting his attack because you don't have probable cause that you can use in court because you got the information from a foreign intelligence source. So you have to leave him alone until you have something to arrest him for -- which probably means you leave him alone until he kills a few dozen, or hundreds, or thousands of civilians?

Ridiculous. The criminal law doesn't work in this context. We have tried that thinking and it failed. The second scenario is why Bin Laden was allowed to escape from Sudan. The first example is one that nobody has been dumb enough to try. But it is what you call for when you try to ignore the fact that international terrorism is not like domestic crime.

This is what I mean about Dershowitz being among the few on the left who are actually thinking about the implications of international terrorism. Thinking means reexamining archaic institutions when the world has changed.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's correct. If someone qualifies for POW status, they aren't criminals unless they are being separately investigated for war crimes. So naturally, they ought to be treated differently from a criminal. Except, of course, there are no appeals and they don't get released until the end of hostilities or until the power holding them decides to release them (such as in a prisoner exchange).

You have seen Troll and me going back and forth on the unlawful combatant issue. I think we agree that terrorists don't fit in to the definition in both the Geneva and Hague Conventions of who gets POW status. The disagreement is over whether that means they are civilians -- notwithstanding the fact they are obviously fighting as combatants -- or whether they are combatants who simply don't have the protection of POW status. I think the latter is the better view. The other view turns the purpose of the laws of war on their head. They make the law a shield for terrorists to hide behind, endangering civilians and law-abiding combatants. But putting terrorists into this no-status status leaves them in a void where there is no codified law at present. That's why we've been forced to make it up ad hoc. All there is in this area is customary law on dealing with spies and sabateurs -- but that authorizes summary execution, which probably isn't in tune with contemporary sensibilities. So you have confusion.

That is what I understand Dershowitz is proposing to clear up. He wants to bring the laws of war into line with reality and thereby ensuring that war will continue to be governed by law that has relevance but isn't a weapon for terrorists. It's long overdue.

But then again. Where does a canadian anti-abortion sniper go?

He's not a civilian under the article you linked to above. Nor a POW.

Since he attacks civilians... he would be a combatant.

Same with many criminals.

"terrorism" is a broad word. Any crime can be terrorism.

Heck we could even say drunk drivers are terrorists. They are out intentionally and knowingly willing to kill others. They often have passengers (human shields). Are they terrorists? They are intentionally out to kill with no regard for human life?

"terrorism" is a broad undefined word in itself. I think if we clarified the word first... THEN this discussion is 10001% valid. But until then... what is terrorism?

According to most it's defined as the use of violence, terror, and/or intimidation to achieve an end.

A few things could fall into that: Police Officer, Self Defense, among others. Note it doesn't say "intentional".

Note the word intimidation. The million man march, or any mass gathering. Even the 9/11 aniversary could be a terrorist act. An act of intimidation to achieve an end.


Bottom line... a wheel is only useful if you have an axel, a bed to ride on the wheels and axel... and a path. Otherwise, it's pointless.

Define terrorism in absolute strict terms... then this is a worthwhile discussion.

Otherwise... why can't the president be a terrorist. By official title he is the "commander in chief". A commander is always responsible for the actions of those they command. Going back to the prison 'scandel'... if this were Iraq, we wouldn't care if he knew... it's his business to know... therefore he to is a terrorist. As well as all under him to the individuals who carried out the task.


Where is that fine line? How can we update the geneva convention to cover a broad word. It's like "crime". (j-walking, profanities in public, women in shorts in NYC, theft, rape, murder, mass murder). All fall into that category... but what specifically are you targeting?

How about the white supremisists who dragged that african american gentleman from the back of their pickup truck in texas? Terrorists or criminal?

Timmy McVeigh? Terry Nichols? Can we retry them (those living)?


I see the point made, and agree. But I don't like the idea of leaving something so open to interpretation. Anything is terrorism. Technically, we could hold post-humus trials for George Washington et. al. for tarring and feathering british loyalists... that's terrorism right there.

Foundation needed before you put a building up. Define terorism exact, and specific that there isn't any way to misuse it... then this is worthy discussion. Until then it's pointless. Anything could be worded so that it's terrorism.

This is like how Kenny Lay, gets off easy, while Martha who broke the law for a few dollars (compared to kenny), goes to jail.... rather bogus exploitation.

Sorry, but I don't trust the government with such a broad word. If we are going to do that... why not scratch all the laws, and just put everything into 3 categories:

1. 'Doesn't really matter',
2. 'crime',
3. 'terrorism'

1. Community service
2. 50 years jail
3. Death.

Where it falls is up to government on a case by case basis. A parking ticket can fall into any of the 3 categories. So can murder, so can theft, so can terrorism.

If we had solid 100% bonified wording on terrorism, this would be valid discussion. But we clearly don't. According to the feds, there's no such thing as domestic terrorism. Nor can it be performed by an allied government. According to others, it can. It can be done by individuals, it can be done by branches of our own government. Everyone could do it.

The idea in the article is a valid point... but it leaves the potential for massive abuse. Why can't itai195's illegal parking be a terrorist act? Perhaps he (knowing or unknowngly) blocked an ambulence traveling to the scene of a violent crime. The ambulence had to backup and go down another street... it was to late. Is he a terrorist or a criminal? Or did he just have a parking violation? Should a judge be able to decide if he even deserves a defense?

Terrorism is a vague word. Anything is terrorism if you want it to be. Anything is 'fair' if you want it to be.

[Saad]

I think more the issue is to establish universally accepted laws for terrorists. There are different laws regarding terror suspects in Indonesia than Germany, for example.

Ideally, we would be able to agree to acceptable terms with the orginizations involved, but they seem hellbent in killing as many as they can, so negotiations (at this time) would, presumeably, be futile.

[boots]

I agree. But trying to define "terrorism" would have to part of the revisions. Not sure how you do that. At least in a way that is universally agreed upon. The UN has been trying to do this for a number of years. Definitions that middle Eastern Arabs states agree with would include some of the Israeli actions (and US), while Our definitions tend to have large gaps in the coverage.

The other problem is that "terrorists" (by whatever definition) don't care. They aren't signatories and they don't feel bound by such things. Kinda hard to have only one side playing "fair." Of course, there are reasons I would think we should act according to such conventions regardless of what the opponent does....

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But then again. Where does a canadian anti-abortion sniper go?

I think we are talking about international terrorism here, and also terrorism above a certain threshold. The Canadian anti-abortion sniper would go to jail just like any other domestic criminal. However, the Canadian sniper who affiliates with a global terrorist organization that has declared war on whole countries ought to be treated differently because the threat is different.

Dershowitz criticizes the binary thinking of the current laws of war. The reality that has to be accommodated to is more complex.

[Saad]

The other problem is that "terrorists" (by whatever definition) don't care. They aren't signatories and they don't feel bound by such things. Kinda hard to have only one side playing "fair." Of course, there are reasons I would think we should act according to such conventions regardless of what the opponent does

Sadly, yes, they will not negotiate (at this time). It is our responisibilty, as a highly developed and well funded democracy, to treat the terrorists with the compassion that they deny us. Beating and raping suspects will not slow down the spread of terrorism throughout the world, logically, and historically, it will only encourage such a spread.

[boots]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Dershowitz criticizes the binary thinking of the current laws of war. The reality that has to be accommodated to is more complex.

Again, I agree. It will be very interesting to see in a real discussion starts or if we see more political grandstanding and "I'm stronger on security" fingerpointing from those in leadership positions. It's a discussion we've need to be in for nearly 30 years.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by boots:
The other problem is that "terrorists" (by whatever definition) don't care. They aren't signatories and they don't feel bound by such things. Kinda hard to have only one side playing "fair." Of course, there are reasons I would think we should act according to such conventions regardless of what the opponent does....

Of course this only affects us. But again to return to what Dershowitz is saying terrorism puts us in a dilemma. If you scrupulously follow a completely inappropriate set of rules that were designed for a different era and a different type of war, you give the advantage to the terrorists. You turn a law designed to be civilizing into a weapon for the uncivilized. So Dershowitz's point is that such a useless counterproductive, downright suicidal law is going to be junked out of sheer self-defense. But that isn't necessarily a good thing either. It makes us as lawless as the terrorists.

Rather than junk the law entirely, it makes more sense to reform it. That way, the law constrains our behavior (as it should), but not to the extent that it causes us to lose the war, and a lot of innocent civilians. But you can't do that by pretending the issue doesn't exist. Unfortunately, that has been the extent of the "debate" from much of the diplomatic community in the last three years. That's the inertia that has to be overcome.

[theolein]

This is BS in my eyes because of the same problem with the debate on what terrorism should be defined as that went on at the UN three years ago: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is as true today with repsect to islamic extremism as it was to Russian partisans fighting the Nazis in occupied Russia in WWII. The former are terrorists to most of the non islamic world and to some of the Islamic world and freedom fighters to a fair amount of Muslims in places like Pakistan, Indonesia and Yemen and the latter were terrorists to the Nazis and freedom fighters to everyone else.

Until there is a single agreed upon definition by all parties on what terrorism is, then there will be no changes or addendums to the Geneva convention.

[boots]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Rather than junk the law entirely, it makes more sense to reform it. That way, the law constrains our behavior (as it should), but not to the extent that it causes us to lose the war, and a lot of innocent civilians. But you can't do that by pretending the issue doesn't exist. Unfortunately, that has been the extent of the "debate" from much of the diplomatic community in the last three years. That's the inertia that has to be overcome.

True. I was just pointing out something that needs to be on the table when and if discussion really do start. As i said, there are reasons (IMO) why having something like the GC is worthy regardless of what the opponents do...then again, standing behind trees while picking off Red Coats was pretty damned uncivilized back in the day...

I'm not an ethicist, but this is certainly something that I would want to see discussed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
This is BS in my eyes because of the same problem with the debate on what terrorism should be defined as that went on at the UN three years ago: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is as true today with repsect to islamic extremism as it was to Russian partisans fighting the Nazis in occupied Russia in WWII. The former are terrorists to most of the non islamic world and to some of the Islamic world and freedom fighters to a fair amount of Muslims in places like Pakistan, Indonesia and Yemen and the latter were terrorists to the Nazis and freedom fighters to everyone else.

Until there is a single agreed upon definition by all parties on what terrorism is, then there will be no changes or addendums to the Geneva convention.

What's so difficult? The Geneva Convention already has a definition of a lawful combatant entitled to POW status if captured. So that doesn't have to be changed. It's pretty obvious what the definition of a non-combatant is. It's someone who isn't fighting. That's simply what the word means. So if you have someone between those two definitions -- someone who is fighting, but not doing so in the manner requred by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, you have a workable definition of a terrorist.

Then all you need is to determine what rights such a person deserves if captured. Presumably, those rights would be somewhat less than a POW, but more than the absolute minimum of international human rights norms. None of this requires a political definition of terrorism. That's a problem that you really only have in the criminal context where you have to worry about trials, arrest warrants, probable cause, etc.

And anyway, there are already international conventions that define acts of terrorism. They were put into place when international hijacking first became popular. It's just that terrorism has outgrown the means to tackle it. But the legal kernel is there.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by boots:
I agree. But trying to define "terrorism" would have to part of the revisions. Not sure how you do that. At least in a way that is universally agreed upon. The UN has been trying to do this for a number of years. Definitions that middle Eastern Arabs states agree with would include some of the Israeli actions (and US), while Our definitions tend to have large gaps in the coverage.

The other problem is that "terrorists" (by whatever definition) don't care. They aren't signatories and they don't feel bound by such things. Kinda hard to have only one side playing "fair." Of course, there are reasons I would think we should act according to such conventions regardless of what the opponent does....

This is exactly my point. Exactly it. Our definitions have large gaps in coverage.

To cover it all, means engulfing all 'crime'.

In singapore you can be caned for spitting gum on the sidewalk... I'd bet their definition of 'terrorism' is a bit more strict.

So do we create a whitelist? The following people are immune from terrorism? Do we elect someone to make the decision?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think we are talking about international terrorism here, and also terrorism above a certain threshold. The Canadian anti-abortion sniper would go to jail just like any other domestic criminal. However, the Canadian sniper who affiliates with a global terrorist organization that has declared war on whole countries ought to be treated differently because the threat is different.

Dershowitz criticizes the binary thinking of the current laws of war. The reality that has to be accommodated to is more complex.

Well many of these abortion snipers are part of an international organized group. These aren't lone individuals. But devout christians who are willing to be martyrs for their cause. They are unquestionably an international group.

They declare war on a particular group (pregnant women who abort their pregancy).

So if it has to be on 'whole nations'... is a group that targets jews specifically not a terrorist group? If they attack an appartment complex of american civilians in Saudi Arabia again (like they did a year ago)... Terrorism? They didn't attack the entire country.

This is exactly my point. Where exactly (to the grain of sand) in the sahara do you draw the line in the sand?


"terrorism" is to broad of a word. Always was, and most likely always will be. That's what I'm against.

Again, I believe the author has a valid point. But where do we draw the line.

And secondly. IF there is a mistake made, and the individual turns out not to be a terrorist, what is the recourse? A simple appology? Cash? Criminal (regardless of intent?)? How to we prevent abuse of this power? An individual who can do this can override the constitution, and unpresidented power. Where to checks and balances come into play? If the supreme court says something, are they protecting terrorists? Is that in itself criminal? Or fall into this new terrorist category?

[itai195]

Originally posted by boots:
True. I was just pointing out something that needs to be on the table when and if discussion really do start. As i said, there are reasons (IMO) why having something like the GC is worthy regardless of what the opponents do...then again, standing behind trees while picking off Red Coats was pretty damned uncivilized back in the day...

Beat me to it

The laws change quite often, as new technology and new tactics change the nature of war. In WW1, for example, it was Germany's unrestricted u-boat warfare that turned all the laws on their heads. I don't think there has to be agreement over how to reform the laws, but it seems that it's an issue that should at least be discussed.

(And glad to see my prediction of Dershowitz-bashing didn't pan out )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Well many of these abortion snipers are part of an international organized group. These aren't lone individuals. But devout christians who are willing to be martyrs for their cause. They are unquestionably an international group.

They declare war on a particular group (pregnant women who abort their pregancy).

So if it has to be on 'whole nations'... is a group that targets jews specifically not a terrorist group? If they attack an appartment complex of american civilians in Saudi Arabia again (like they did a year ago)... Terrorism? They didn't attack the entire country.

This is exactly my point. Where exactly (to the grain of sand) in the sahara do you draw the line in the sand?

This is what we used to call in the Army "what if-ing something to death." You can always shoot down any idea by saying "what if (insert absurd scenario here)."

In reality, governments are already able to figure out complex distinctions between scenario a and scenario b. Nobody is suggesting that we fold all criminal law into warfighting doctrine. All that is being suggested is that the border between the two needs to be looked at in light of modern realities. And that 1940s international law isn't the answer.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ridiculous. The criminal law doesn't work in this context. We have tried that thinking and it failed.

We have tried as well and it worked quite well. Or where is the Rote Armee Fraktion?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
We have tried as well and it worked quite well. Or where is the Rote Armee Fraktion?

That's domestic terrorism -- except to the extent the RAF was supported by the Soviet Bloc (which it was). But the scale was far less than what we are talking about here.

I've noticed this about European opinion. An inability to grasp that your little domestic problems in the 1970s aren't a blueprint for the 21st century. It's as if the British government were told in 1940 not to worry about the Luftwaffe because the Brits didn't have problems with Fokker biplanes in 1917.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is what we used to call in the Army "what if-ing something to death." You can always shoot down any idea by saying "what if (insert absurd scenario here)."

In reality, governments are already able to figure out complex distinctions between scenario a and scenario b. Nobody is suggesting that we fold all criminal law into warfighting doctrine. All that is being suggested is that the border between the two needs to be looked at in light of modern realities. And that 1940s international law isn't the answer.

Nobody is "suggesting" it.. but nobody is looking to prevent it either.

Nobody was looking to protect terrorists in the 40's either. But they found a work around.

If your going to re-invent something.. at least make sure it's better.

Again, we could just abolish the constitution, then there is no problem at all. The topic is completely irrelevent. We solve the problem, and there is no argument about it.

But is that the solution?

Were still classifying something we aren't even universally agreed upon (no definition).. and were creating major loopholes in the basic principles in which our government and judical system is based on.

This is unpresidented. At the very least, a definition should be required before hand.

Otherwise... why not just remove the constitution? If your going to effectively override it anyway, putting the complete trust in certian people... what good does the constitution serve? Aren't they just as capable of acting in place of the constitution?

Yes it's hypothetical... but that's the point. There's no clear definition. So no matter what, the changes themselves would be hypothetical.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've noticed this about European opinion. An inability to grasp that your little domestic problems in the 1970s aren't a blueprint for the 21st century. It's as if the British government were told in 1940 not to worry about the Luftwaffe because the Brits didn't have problems with Fokker biplanes in 1917.

It's called Maginot Syndrome.

[BRussell]

In general, reading his article makes it clear that this is really geared toward Israel more than the US.

First, democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians, so long as proportional force is employed. Civilians who are killed while being used as human shields by terrorists must be deemed the victims of the terrorists who have chosen to hide among them, rather than those of the democracies who may have fired the fatal shot.

Is civilian collateral damage illegal under current international law? As I understand it, only military targets must be attacked. But if terrorists are being attacked, and civilians are killed in the process, as far as I know that's not illegal. Not a good thing of course, but there's no law against collateral damage.

Second, a new category of prisoner should be recognized for captured terrorists and those who support them. They are not "prisoners of war," neither are they "ordinary criminals." They are suspected terrorists who operate outside the laws of war, and a new status should be designated for them - a status that affords them certain humanitarian rights, but does not treat them as traditional combatants.

That's fine, as far as I'm concerned. That's the crux of the problem with the unlawful combatants. But as I understand the issue as it applies to the US and Gtmo, it's that a competent tribunal is supposed to make the decision about status, and that hasn't happened.

Third, the law must come to realize that the traditional sharp line between combatants and civilians has been replaced by a continuum of civilian-ness. At the innocent end are those who do not support terrorism in any way. In the middle are those who applaud the terrorism, encourage it, but do not actively facilitate it. At the guilty end are those who help finance it, who make martyrs of the suicide bombers, who help the terrorists hide among them, and who fail to report imminent attacks of which they are aware. The law should recognize this continuum in dealing with those who are complicit, to some degree, in terrorism.

I'm not sure I get this. What is he suggesting you do about people who are in the middle and encourage terrorism, for example? Since his article is about changing the GC, I assume he means something with the military.

Fourth, the treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.

Again though, if terrorists are not given POW status, then the GC limit on interrogation doesn't apply.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Geneva Convention needs updating.

Translation: The US needs to be exempt from the Geneva Conventions.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've noticed this about European opinion. An inability to grasp that your little domestic problems in the 1970s aren't a blueprint for the 21st century.

And killing innocent people with cruise missiles is?

First, democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians, so long as proportional force is employed.

You're welcome to make that in your own country. But should you ever kill innocent civilians on German territory I can tell you that I will be seriously pissed off.
I will not agree to any change to the Geneva Convention that allows this.

[BRussell]

In related news:

Dramatic video footage filmed in the midst of fierce battles between the Israel Defense Forces and Palestinian gunmen in Rafah, Gaza has been obtained by Access|Middle East. * The clip shows a UN ambulance being used by Palestinians to transport armed militants. * This footage was shot by Reuters on May 11 -- the day 6 IDF soldiers were killed when their armored personnel carrier was blown up -- but only aired locally two weeks later. * Click below for video

WMV video here.

[Will McGoonigle]

What about all them Bostonians and New Yorkers who funded IRA terrorism? I was almost a victim of IRA bombs TWICE. I've seen the scene of people running through city streets after an explosion. What action was taken against these supporters of terrorism?

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's domestic terrorism -- except to the extent the RAF was supported by the Soviet Bloc (which it was). But the scale was far less than what we are talking about here.

I've noticed this about European opinion. An inability to grasp that your little domestic problems in the 1970s aren't a blueprint for the 21st century. It's as if the British government were told in 1940 not to worry about the Luftwaffe because the Brits didn't have problems with Fokker biplanes in 1917.

You really do give a new meaning to the phrase arrogant snob.

And you're being your usual take-it-off-on-a-tangent-when-you-have-no-answer self. The terrorism of the RAF was by no means only a German problem, which you damn well know. The RAF carried out operations outside of Germany, one of which was the hostage taking of the German embassy in Sweden. Other communist terrorists of the era such as the Japanses Red army took part in the shooting at Lod airport in Israel.

At the time the problem was communist terrorists. Now it's islamic terrorists. Pray tell, what is the difference except that the USA was attacked in 2001?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
What about all them Bostonians and New Yorkers who funded IRA terrorism? I was almost a victim of IRA bombs TWICE. I've seen the scene of people running through city streets after an explosion. What action was taken against these supporters of terrorism?

Oh, that? According to our military legal expert (He was in the army, you know? He was in the army for 7 years, you know?), that is just a petty European problem and as such is not worth his consideration. He's an important person, you know.

[Dr.HermanG.]

It's just a piece of paper. Who needs the GC? More usurption of the U.S.'s right to do what it needs to protect itself in a hostile world.

[Will McGoonigle]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
It's just a piece of paper. Who needs the GC? More usurption of the U.S.'s right to do what it needs to protect itself in a hostile world.

Exactly. Who wants to pay the 7 trillion debt?

[PacHead]

The ridiculously outdated Geneva conventions definitely needs updating. We're supposed to be killing terrorists, not worrying about how best to treat them. Our soldiers need to be kicking ass, not engaging in futile ceasefires with a lying and deceitful enemy.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
It's just a piece of paper. Who needs the GC? More usurption of the U.S.'s right to do what it needs to protect itself in a hostile world.

So why don't you just close your borders and fu�k off into isolation and leave the rest of us alone.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
What about all them Bostonians and New Yorkers who funded IRA terrorism? I was almost a victim of IRA bombs TWICE. I've seen the scene of people running through city streets after an explosion. What action was taken against these supporters of terrorism?

You are entitled to bag and cuff as many Yanks as it takes until you find out who sponsored the terrorists. Alternately you can kidnap their families until they talk.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by theolein:
So why don't you just close your borders and fu�k off into isolation and leave the rest of us alone.

When America practiced isolationism, it was very successful.

Unfortunately, it turned out to have been successful for Tojo and Adolf more than anyone else.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
At the time the problem was communist terrorists. Now it's islamic terrorists. Pray tell, what is the difference except that the USA was attacked in 2001?

Quite a few (in fact, i believe most) of the victims of the RAF and Baader Meinhof terrorists of the 70s victims were Americans. To take one bloody example, the bombing of the Frankfurt PX. But it doesn't alter the fact that those groups were far smaller, and with far less support, and with far smaller ambitions than today's international Islamic terrorists. Therefore, they are not a blueprint and I am tired of arrogant Europeans pretending otherwise.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
Oh, that? According to our military legal expert (He was in the army, you know? He was in the army for 7 years, you know?), that is just a petty European problem and as such is not worth his consideration. He's an important person, you know.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
So why don't you just close your borders and fu�k off into isolation and leave the rest of us alone.

Take care of your own problems and we'd be happy to. But if you haven't noticed yet, your problems are always our problems. Europe can't even stop a little war on its own continent without screaming for Americans to wipe your noses for you. How do you expect to defeat terrorism without trying?

And by the way, I expect you to return the salary the US paid you while we were defending Berlin. Since you hate American involvement in the world so much it is hypocritical of you to have taken a paid job with our armed forces.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The ridiculously outdated Geneva conventions definitely needs updating. We're supposed to be killing terrorists, not worrying about how best to treat them. Our soldiers need to be kicking ass, not engaging in futile ceasefires with a lying and deceitful enemy.

Under some countries laws and morals, our soldiers are technically committing acts of terrorism.

Is it ok for others to kill/torture our soldiers as their own laws permit?

If Iraqi's decide to start breaking legs and torture all Americans they capture from here on out, basing it on the fact that Americans have commited attrocities in their country... is it justified? Or is due process required? Do we have that right? Or is due process required?

Whose laws regarding terrorists do we follow? Whose laws do everyone else follow?

What are our own citizens/soldiers subject to? Due they need to be treated under the geneva convention? The wording is broad enough, that it could easily be "no". Same loopholes work both ways.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Translation: The US needs to be exempt from the Geneva Conventions.

Well yes. But we've already established we can't be held to them, we follow them because we believe in them, but we aren't obligated in any circumstance. The US decided that decades ago, and reiterated after 9/11.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
What about all them Bostonians and New Yorkers who funded IRA terrorism? I was almost a victim of IRA bombs TWICE. I've seen the scene of people running through city streets after an explosion. What action was taken against these supporters of terrorism?

You won't have any disagreement from me that those people were indeed supporting terrorism. It's not just the IRA that got funds that way. Hamas did too. The problem is that at the time, the donations were legal under US law. Thanks to their representatives in Congress (e.g. the Kennedys, John Kerry), that wasn't going to change unless something big happened. On 9/11, something big happened. Those kinds of donations would be illegal today, and groups that raise funds in that way would be outlawed.

The other side of the coin is that it was some of our politicians (Senator Mitchell, and President Clinton) that were fairly instrumental in getting the negotiations going to end the violence. That's one difference between European domestic terrorism and terrorism of the variety typified by al Queda. The IRA, as loopy as I think they are, had political demands that you could negotiate with. Al Queda's demands basically begin and end with a demand that we die. You can't negotiate with that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The ridiculously outdated Geneva conventions definitely needs updating. We're supposed to be killing terrorists, not worrying about how best to treat them. Our soldiers need to be kicking ass, not engaging in futile ceasefires with a lying and deceitful enemy.

No, they need updating because it would be helpful to our military to know how to treat terrorists properly and appropriately. Secondly, it would help bridge a gap between those who think there is a war against terrorism, and those who desparately want to pretend otherwise. A new more relevant international convention would help unify the world in the fight against international terrorism by setting forth agreed (but realistic and appropriate) standards for everyone to follow.

Right now what you have is a sizeable chunk of the victims of terrorism thinking they can appease their way out of it. A good part of the reason why this is so is because of their squeamishness with reality. But they are part of the fight whether they like it or not.

[Ayelbourne]

"Just some good ol' boys,
Never meanin' no harm,
Beats all you ever saw, been in trouble with the law since the day they was born.

Makin' their way,
The only way they know how,
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow."

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Translation: The US needs to be exempt from the Geneva Conventions.

Yup, pretty much.

Dershowitz's argument ultimately comes down to the idea of fighting terrorism with terrorism. Only now he wishes for the 'good guy's' utility of terrorism to be legal. Pfft.

An alternative viewpoint:
http://www.counterpunch.org/youmans0910.html

Alan Dershowitz is the kind of guy who never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Harvard Law School professor and part-time voracious defender of Israel devoted his celebrity legal mind to combating terrorism. His partisan and fundamental support for Israel, however, discredits his own views on terrorism.

He outraged supporters of civil liberties and due process after September 11, 2001 for suggesting that torture should be legally sanctioned and warranted by the courts--an argument he forwards in his new book 'Why Terrorism Works'. His shining model for a legalized system of torture is Israel, of course. In a talk he gave to the World Affairs Council on September 3rd, 2002, he described Israel's procedure as invoked judiciously and non-lethal in technique. He was unconcerned with who was being tortured and for what. What mattered to him was strictly technical in nature, like a good lawyer.

[Troll]

It�s kind of bizarre how we got to this discussion. Bush coined the phrase War on Terrorism. I remember seeing the words flash up on CNN. Then we started sarcastically saying, �Watch out about calling it a war, because then the Geneva Conventions will apply and prisoners of that war will have to be released etc,� and then the response was that it�s a war but one to which the rules of war don�t apply. Now we�re saying that the rules of war inhibit our fight against terrorism. And we have American law students and law professors saying that!!

I only got to the second paragraph of Dershowitz�s article before I had my head in my hands.

[In World War II] noncombatants, on the other hand, wore civilian clothing and lived mostly in areas distant from the battlefields."

They lived mostly distant from the battlefields? I wonder if this guy has ever been to London or Dresden or Caen! The French resistance wore uniforms? The world is not that different today. It�s not very different for Israelis today than it was 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. All that�s different is that Israel is more brutal in dealing with �terrorism� today than it was before and so it offends the law more today than it used to and gets rebuked more by civilised countries today than it used to. For the rest of us, although terrorists (notably one specific group of terrorists) are more successful today than they used to be, the nature of the threat is the same.

This opinion piece isn�t actually a critique of the Geneva Conventions� application to the US�s War on Terror. It�s a rather badly veiled attempt to cast Israel�s problems as the world�s problems and to propose a solution that justifies Israel�s oppression. �The war by terrorists against democracies has changed all this,� says Dershowtiz as if there is one group of terrorists attacking all democracies and as if the US and Israel are in the same boat. Given the makeup of the Project for a New American Century and the Neocons� relationship with Israeli policy makers, I wasn�t surprised either that the Bush Administration was inspired by the Israeli approach to terrorism or that the US came to face the same cycle of violence problems and international human rights condemnation that Israel does. Still, you�d think that Americans would wake up and realise that the terrorism they face and the �terrorism� the Israelis face are completely different beasts.

When Bush says that the Western world is engaged in a war against terrorism I don�t believe that he means that the entire globe is a battlefield and that the Geneva Conventions apply in downtown New York, London and Paris. I think it only makes sense to see the War on Terror as conveying seriousness about the response to terrorism, including a willingness to wage conventional war against countries that support terrorism. I think we need to distinguish the War on Terror (which like the war on drugs is a rhetorical device) and the Wars against Terrorists and Terrorist sponsors. The GC�s apply to the latter but not the former; they apply to the Afghanistan war � a conflict between states and parties that fought on behalf of one state. They apply in parts of Pakistan where the Pakistani military conducts operations against Al Qaeda - a conflict between a state and a militia operating within a state. The GC�s do not apply to the arrest of terror suspects in Madrid or to the arrest of Daniel Pearl�s killers in Karachi � those are not acts of WAR. If you insist on retaining the Bush rhetoric, then I would say that the Geneva Conventions apply to the wars within the war, not to the war itself.

People have surprisingly few problems with the wars within the war because that is the situation that the GC�s are designed to deal with. No one suggests that there should be fewer restrictions on carpet bombing residential areas. The real problems people have are with the larger WOT where the GC�s do not apply. They have problems with intelligence being used in trials, with banking secrecy laws etc. The GC�s don�t deal with criminals (be they war criminals or terrorists or rapists or murderers) except to say that the criminal law should be applied to them. None of Dershowitz�s 4 problems are relevant to the GC�s in the context of the US�s War on Terror if you look at them. As an aside, I might just mention that using an ambulance as a troop transport is a war crime under the GC�s!

The problem with the law, if there is one, is with domestic and international criminal law. I'd point out to those who argue that it is weak that most of the successful operations against terrorism have been actions taken within the existing criminal law matrix, not out of armed conflict. And that the GC's didn't compromise those operations. The place where the GC�s were a potential problem for the WOT was in Afghanistan because there the GC�s did apply. For the life of me, I can�t fathom why the Bushies didn�t just slap a terrorism charge on all of those guys that they captured and then start sifting through them as the GC�s required. Even Simey has been unable to come up with an explanation for the US policy in respect of Guantanamo detainees. But, I hardly think you can blame the GC�s for not working when the US never applied them. Although I don�t see Iraq as being an exercise related to terrorism, Dershowitz seems to be saying that without the Geneva Conventions the torture of Iraqi prisoners would be possible. That is not the case. As I�ve said before, the Geneva Conventions wouldn�t even apply to insurgents and terrorists so they weren�t the obstacle to everyone becoming a Pvt England. Your real problem when it comes to torture is US military and other law first and then international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You�ve got a lot of law to undo if you want to start authorising torture!

I think Dershowitz attacks the Geneva Conventions rather than criminal law failures because his real interest, Israel, is confronted with the GC�s every day. Almost all of Israel�s anti-terrorism action relies on armed conflict in the Occupied Territories and that conflict is governed by the GC�s. I don�t think the international community should consider amending the GC�s so as to excuse Israel destroying civilian homes in collective punishment for terrorist acts, or condoning the assassination of people in the street at the peril of civilians. That offends the very core values of the GC�s not to mention the values that the international system and democracies are based on. I don't want to see goverments being authorised to fire a cruise missile into cars passing my building because they suspect terrorists to be inside and I think we all see the value in retaining law that prevents such action. Criticising Israel for not complyig with that standard is only normal.

For the most part the US Army has complied with the GC's and where they haven�t (Guantanamo, torture in Iraq) I�d argue that the lack of compliance has caused more harm to the anti terrorism cause than compliance would have. If anything, I think it�s the criminal law that has proved to be lacking in certain cases. The UK, France, South Africa and many other countries have adopted comprehensive terrorism legislation recently which curbs the accused rights in cases of terrorism, grants broader powers to investigate and stop funding of terrorism etc. and those laws have proved successful. One might try to coordinate the domestic laws in a Terrorism Convention but I can�t see it being a very effective instrument given the problem of defining terrorists. Certainly Dershowitz has no interest in making that suggestion because he knows that the Palestinians will never be defined as terrorists in such an instrument and that a law like that wouldn�t get the Israelis off the hook for the treatment of Palestinians. Dershowitz needs to realise that the world isn�t going to excuse the Israeli action. Even the US no longer accepts their action.

Frankly I think that people who argue that the Geneva Conventions need to amended because they protect terrorists are barking up the wrong tree. The Geneva Conventions aren�t designed to protect civilians from terrorism (as Dershowitz suggests) or to prosecute terrorism and they do an extremely good job of dealing with the situation that they were set up to handle.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Take care of your own problems and we'd be happy to. But if you haven't noticed yet, your problems are always our problems. Europe can't even stop a little war on its own continent without screaming for Americans to wipe your noses for you. How do you expect to defeat terrorism without trying?

And by the way, I expect you to return the salary the US paid you while we were defending Berlin. Since you hate American involvement in the world so much it is hypocritical of you to have taken a paid job with our armed forces.

[Will McGoonigle]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You won't have any disagreement from me that those people were indeed supporting terrorism. It's not just the IRA that got funds that way. Hamas did too. The problem is that at the time, the donations were legal under US law. Thanks to their representatives in Congress (e.g. the Kennedys, John Kerry), that wasn't going to change unless something big happened. On 9/11, something big happened. Those kinds of donations would be illegal today, and groups that raise funds in that way would be outlawed.

The other side of the coin is that it was some of our politicians (Senator Mitchell, and President Clinton) that were fairly instrumental in getting the negotiations going to end the violence. That's one difference between European domestic terrorism and terrorism of the variety typified by al Queda. The IRA, as loopy as I think they are, had political demands that you could negotiate with. Al Queda's demands basically begin and end with a demand that we die. You can't negotiate with that.

I think there are several mistakes there:

-IRA funds were coming from Americans who think of themselves as 'Irish' (about as Irish as Van Helsing in most cases). They make up a large amount of voters so preventing them from doing there business is a politician's no-no. So Irish maniacs were killing Irish and English people, both of whom are American allies. Weird, huh?

-I'm glad you notice how instrumental Clinton was in the peace process, not just in Ireland but in Israel-Palestine too. When Bush came to office Irish terrorism and clashes resumed. He ignored them. In the middle-east the intifada had just begun, he ignored it completely and then after 9-11 he sent Powell to the middle-east as a token gesture where Powell was basically told to go F himself.

-I don't think 'Al-Qaeda' (I'm starting to wonder if this boogey man exists or is just a convenient way to group together nebulous groups of angry people) wants us to die just like that, no reason at all - just die. Makes no sense. Bin Ladin made many offers, the Taleban even offered to turn him over but the offer was declined. Bush was and still is bent on war for profit and won't have anything to do with dialogue. No matter what demands they make we simply won't let go of the oil fields there. Dialogue with Bush is impossiible anyway. He can't even pronounce English words let alone Arabic ones.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:

-I'm glad you notice how instrumental Clinton was in the peace process, not just in Ireland but in Israel-Palestine too. When Bush came to office Irish terrorism and clashes resumed. He ignored them. In the middle-east the intifada had just begun, he ignored it completely and then after 9-11 he sent Powell to the middle-east as a token gesture where Powell was basically told to go F himself.

That's actually a really good point. During the Clinton years, it did die down... but Clinton was working 24x7 to achieve that progress. Some say to much of an international focus.

[Dr.HermanG.]

The chief difference being that the IRA is a local problem to the UK while Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a world-wide problem. I think the fact that Ireland has been more or less a colony of the Crown for so long convinces those with Irish ancestry (like myself) that it's more or less an extention of the American revolution than necessarily hating the British simply because they are British. Having an island split and controlled by two governments as it is makes very little geopolitical sense (not to mention the religious differences between Catholics and Protestants which cannot help matters).