Implications of Bin Laden's death?

gandalf

drkpower wrote: »

`
You are taking a very narrow 16-20th century view of international law. In a world where non-nation States can possess the ability to wage war far more effectively than actual nation states, the concept of 'war' only applying to nation states is utterly naive.

There is no doubt that this area of international law is in its infancy, but to suggest that states are constrained in how they react to an 'act of war' by a non-nation state just because international law has not caught up with the reality of the world is clearly misguided.

All of this is not to say that international law should not be further developed - and quickly - to set some boundaries on this type of action, but to suggest that, in the meantime, the US should be constrained by obselete concepts of international law, while it may be your opinion, is clearly wrong.

Again and sorry if I offend but that does sound like complete and utter doublespeak!

Non-Nation states!!! These men were and are a bunch of criminal terrorists driven by extremist ideas. They are a loosely linked group of disparate local terrorist organisations. All that waffle does is legitimise them more. They are criminals you deal with them as such.

International law is being rendered obsolete alright but it is being eroded by actions like the ones last week of the US.

drkpower

gandalf wrote: »

Again and sorry if I offend but that does sound like complete and utter doublespeak!

Non-Nation states!!! These men were and are a bunch of criminal terrorists driven by extremist ideas. They are a loosely linked group of disparate local terrorist organisations. All that waffle does is legitimise them more. They are criminals you deal with them as such..

Lol!:pac:
You havent really tried to make an argument; you have just called it doublespeak, and nothing more.

What I am suggesting is nothing new; the concept of a non-nation state being a belligerent in a 'war' against whom war-like actions can be aimed against is nothing new! As far back as the US Civil War, the Confederate States of America (a non-nation state) were recognised as a "belligerent" by Great Britain.

NATO recognised the 9 11 attack as an 'armed attack' for the purposes of Article 5 of the NATO treaty, against whom war-like actions could be taken.

Your view seems to be confined to 'only a nation state can declare war and anything else is simply a matter of criminal law'. That is a deeply flawed understanding of international law as it is now, nevermind the theories that might drive international law forward in the context of non-state actors being capable of extensive acts of war (which is a very recent development).

You need to read up on these issues a bit more; because currently your views are informed by only a very basic understanding.

gandalf

drkpower wrote: »

Lol!:pac:
You havent really tried to make an argument; you have just called it doublespeak, and nothing more.

An argument against justifying US actions by allowing them make the rules up as they go along which seems to be what you are advocating here. That is what you are saying isn't it. International Law doesn't cover this so lets make it up as we go along?

What I am suggesting is nothing new; the concept of a non-nation state being a belligerent in a 'war' against whom war-like actions can be aimed against is nothing new! As far back as the US Civil War, the Confederate States of America (a non-nation state) were recognised as a "belligerent" by Great Britain.

That is hardly comparable at all. That was a civil war in one country with two distinguishable sides. Not a nation state against a pack of criminals who are driven by extremist ideals.

NATO recognised the 9 11 attack as an 'armed attack' for the purposes of Article 5 of the NATO treaty, against whom war-like actions could be taken.

An armed attack that was used rightly as a reason for the UN mandated action in Afghanistan.

Your view seems to be confined to 'only a nation state can declare war and anything else is simply a matter of criminal law'. That is a deeply flawed understanding of international law as it is now, nevermind the theories that might drive international law forward in the context of non-state actors being capable of extensive acts of war (which is a very recent development).

We are getting side tracked here because you are right I am not an expert on International law and I never claimed to be. However some of those who are are questioning the black bag operation used to execute OBL without a trial in the media are and that is what is driving my discussion here.

What is worrying is people like yourself and others are justifying this action by saying its justified because International Law does not make provisions for "non-state actors" or other such doublespeak labels.

My main issue is if a nation claims to aspire to higher ideals then it should practice them in every situation even if it means you extend them to your greatest enemy. OBL should have been taken alive and should have been made stand trial.

drkpower

gandalf wrote: »

An argument against justifying US actions by allowing them make the rules up as they go along which seems to be what you are advocating here. That is what you are saying isn't it. International Law doesn't cover this so lets make it up as we go along?.

I wouldnt quite put it like that, but you are not too far off:pac:.

What I would like is that those who develop public international law could agree on the way in which this threat (non state actors with the capacity to seriously threaten nation states) could be addressed within some kind of reasonable boundaries. However, reality (and history) tells me that such changes take decades (often for good reason, there are sinificant complexities).

So, in the absence of the ideal solution, it seems that to be crude about it, we have two choices:
1. Your way; that when a non-state actor attacks a state, the state must pursue them using their own criminal law only.
2. My way; that when a non-state actor attacks a state, the state can consider that an act of war and pursue them, broadly speaking, as they would pursue a state which declared war on them (subject to some obvious necessary differences).

The former is intolerable. If Al-Q tomorrow launched a daily campaign of suicide bombers and dirty bombs on New York (or Dublin), your answer would be for the US (or Ireland) to pursue the perpetrator within the confines of criminal law. That is utterly absurd.

My solution may be far from ideal, but it is a far better solution than yours.

gandalf wrote: »

That is hardly comparable at all.

I wasnt comparin them; I was trying to explain to you that the idea of a non-state actor (which you continue to claim is 'double speak') has been recognised in public international law for almost two centuries.

metrovelvet

gandalf wrote: »

No I wanted a civilised country to deal with a criminal in the civilised manner that they should have. Not to act like a pack of terrorists themselves.

Care to explain to me how he could have wreaked more destruction from a secure trial? To me that sounds like outright paranoia.

We are at war.

It's not a normal criminal case.

Plus if I understand correctly Al Q are not of a state per se but of an ideology. YOu cant have your enemies be your judge and jury if you want to follow democratic rules.

Mr.Micro

metrovelvet wrote: »

We are at war.

It's not a normal criminal case.

Plus if I understand correctly Al Q are not of a state per se but of an ideology. YOu cant have your enemies be your judge and jury if you want to follow democratic rules.

Is that supposed to make sense because it sure as hell baffles me if there is logic in there?


Could I be right in thinking that any Judge and Jury would have to be American and nobody else ( the rest of the world ) could be trusted?

Laminations

gandalf wrote: »

Question for you. Do you believe in executions by states without the due process (and therefore the checks) of a trial?

Yes, in certain instances when the facts are already beyond reasonable doubt and hence do not require a court to establish the truth. In cases when no mitigating circumstances and no possible defense would avoid a ruling of execution.

Laminations

I'll put it this way - if a trial had to establish already agreed upon and accepted facts then trials would reduce to absurdum.
Prosecution :'He killed him with this gun'.
Defense : 'that gun'.
Prosecution : 'Yes this magnum .45'
Defense : 'Please prove that that is a gun'

Laminations

gandalf wrote: »

In mine and a lot of others it sets a worrying precedent. In future if a state wants to execute someone without due course then they can use this precedent, all they have to do is label someone as a terrorist and send in the kill squad.

No. All they'd need to do is find a terrorist who admits affiliation (and leadership) of a terrorist and illegal organisation, and who is almost universally accepted as a terrorist. They couldn't just execute Bono as it wouldn't be beyond reasonable doubt that he is a terrorist who committed acts of war.

Laminations

gandalf wrote: »

Non-Nation states!!! These men were and are a bunch of criminal terrorists driven by extremist ideas. They are a loosely linked group of disparate local terrorist organisations.

Huh?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? That's libel!

metrovelvet

You cant have a trial when the war is ongoing. Enemy soldiers are always regarded as lawful targets, not like criminals the cops catch.

Al Q are enemy combatants DURING an ongoing war, there is no obligation to put them on trial.

Liam Byrne

metrovelvet wrote: »

You cant have a trial when the war is ongoing. Enemy soldiers are always regarded as lawful targets, not like criminals the cops catch.

Al Q are enemy combatants DURING an ongoing war, there is no obligation to put them on trial.

An "ongoing war" which was started by whom ?

Remind me again why the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, and what (manufactured) evidence they used to make the decision.

The fact is that the U.S. are as trustworthy as Al Quaida, and neither have any qualms about murdering innocents in order to further their own aims and agenda.

metrovelvet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

An "ongoing war" which was started by whom ?

Remind me again why the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, and what (manufactured) evidence they used to make the decision.

The fact is that the U.S. are as trustworthy as Al Quaida, and neither have any qualms about murdering innocents in order to further their own aims and agenda.

It was started by Al Q with a few planes in a few places in the US, continued with live beheadings on the internet, bombs in the London underground, and bombs on a train in Madrid.

There is a war on, a declared Jihad or hadnt you noticed.

Liam Byrne

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was started by Al Q with a few planes in a few places in the US, continued with live beheadings on the internet, bombs in the London underground, and bombs on a train in Madrid.

What did that have to do with the U.S. invading Iraq ?

That's a separate war, started by the U.S. because Saddam Hussein wanted to sell oil in euros.

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is a war on, a declared Jihad or hadnt you noticed.

Jihad, Homeland Security - what's the difference ? Both based on ignorant zealots wanting to impose their views on others.

metrovelvet

What are you talking about?

Iraq is another war.

Im talking about Al Q's war on the US.

As for your last statement, yeah whatever.

Liam Byrne

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for your last statement, yeah whatever.

Do you want to openly discuss the topic or just use Jedwardisms in relation to people whose views you disagree with ?

Because if it's the latter there's no point discussing it.

Manic Moran

gandalf wrote: »

No the US Authorities came up with the term "Enemy Combatant" as a mechanism to get around the Geneva convention when dealing with captured enemies in Afghanistan.

That isn't true. The laws of war at least dating back to the Geneva Conventions prior to WWII have always contained the term ' combatant', mainly to distinguish between lawful combatants who are entitled to the protections of the convention, and unlawful combatants who are not.

NTM

Laminations

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The fact is that the U.S. are as trustworthy as Al Quaida,

What? So you would equally trust leaving your child with an al Qaeda member as you would with an american?

and neither have any qualms about murdering innocents in order to further their own aims and agenda.

So you don't get editorials, opinion pieces, debates, protests, regrets about innocent victims in the states? Because you don't get that debate within al Qaeda. Saying they have no qualms is wholly inaccurate, they aim to minimise civilian deaths, al Qaedas MO is about maximising civilian deaths, causing chaos and terror. US foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired but these comparisons are quite disgusting.