SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: cnyndwllr who wrote (121552)6/22/2005 5:55:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll   of 793895
 
Any person can have any number of motives for criminal acts but historically and legally groups of individuals do not engage in "war," no matter what they, or we, call it.


First, this is not accurate. Non-state players engaged in war all the time. They were called "rebels" - unless they won, when they became the new government. They were certainly groups of individuals. What made them combatants was not their mere number but their political purpose and organization.

What is new is to have this rebel activity rely mainly on terrorism and act in a non-localized fashion. The Pentagon has named it "Fourth Generation Warfare" - why don't you look up the concept, because your notion that this organization military activity called "jihad" has to be classed as criminal is way, way behind the times. It is not criminal. Criminals want to make money. They don't want to overthrow governments and establish the caliphate. Criminals don't have a training camp and thousands of armed comrades and military hierarchy either. Al Qaeda does, and these two essentials of purpose and technique designate it a hostile force. Not a bunch of individuals engaging in criminal activity.

Second, ethical and legal authority to imprison others basically derives from our right to take freedom from individuals during conflicts between nations (wars) or as a result of criminal activities. During war all that need be shown is that the imprisoned soldier is a combatant.

Redefining the ruleset to clearly cover the case of non-localized combatants who are engaging in a terrorist NetWar should be a high priority. Until then, they are unlawful combatants, as defined in GC IV. And should be entitled to a military tribunal and detention under that treaty.

Your demand that they be charged with a crime and prosecuted in civil courts is tantamount to a demand that they be let go to rejoin the battle. Just look at the result in Europe with even their high profile cases.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News