4 ms·

Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". You also claim that the laws of war are not applicable to the rem

by berntb 10y ago

Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". You also claim that the laws of war are not applicable to the remaining types of military conflicts (with clans/tribes, any organization that is geographically spread, etc, etc). Do you have references? [Edit: The references need to show that the laws of war don't apply to these other conflicts, too.] Also not that the world's law experts don't seem to agree [Edit: with you. See link in edit at bottom.] (Note that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. We also need a new word for most of the military conflicts through history -- and today. And so on.) (Also, you shouldn't argue against what politicians say in public speeches, for the same reason you shouldn't believe advertisements...) ---- Re Guantanamo: You ignored my argument. Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=1F24D0C949FE1B83C12563CD0051B48C https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... ] The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... [Edit: Here seems to be the relevant definitions in USA, I saw in another place that their High Court argued that the Geneva conventions was relevant under US law also for unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... ]

dpark 10y ago
> Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. Certainly we can be at war with a non-state actor (we clearly are). But our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear. For wars not against nation states, there must still be some sort of due process for prisoners. The idea that being at war with some entity gives us the right to retain arbitrary people indefinitely, without even proving that they have participated in that entity, is morally unacceptable. > Do you have references? The world's law experts don't seem to agree... Do you have an references to the claim that law experts don't agree? There are a few treaties about war prisoners but they apply to signatories, which clans etc are not. Beyond that, "laws of war" have historically been defined by the victors. I'm not aware of a body of law that applies to wars universally, nor do I believe one could exist. (Who could enforce it?) > that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. You could argue that for civil wars at least both sides would effectively be signatories if the nation as a whole was a signatory before the war began. > You also claim that the Taliban never was a government? They had control of a large part of Afghanistan. And they are still fighting, along with their allies. I assume you don't argue that a war stops being a war when one side lose control of their capital? I don't claim any of that. I claim that Afghanistan is at least officially no longer ruled by the Taliban. We don't recognize them as the legitimate government. If we accept that we are no longer at war with Afghanistan then we must according to the Geneva conventions release any prisoners of war captured during the war with Afghanistan. Any enemy combatants not deemed prisoners of war should be given some sort of due process. Again, the idea that being at war against terrorism gives us the right to indefinitely detain arbitrary people is morally unacceptable. > You ignored my argument. > Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.... ] > The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. > The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. > Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... I don't see that I made any of those claims, nor do I feel like I ignored your argument. I don't believe that being a signatory on the Geneva convention in any way gives us a right to indefinitely detain people with no reasonable path to release and no proof of involvement in the conflict. Even if legally we can make that argument, I think it's morally repugnant.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  >No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. No, they do not apply only to nation states. They apply to combatants, whether of a nation state or not. See the Geneva conventions.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Generally referring to the "Geneva conventions" is not a useful citation. There are hundreds of articles in the conventions. Can you point out where the conventions purport to apply to all combatants? https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-590005?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-59... In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. By my reading, this applies to conflicts between signatories or conflicts involving a signatory and a non-signatory who accepts the terms of the convention. So not strictly nation states, but also not every party to every conflict.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      GCIV, Article 3 i.e. the "Next" after your link is about conflicts within a country, in cases where the parties are not High Contracting Parties. This is treated as customary international law, based on a UN Security Council conclusion in 1993 making it binding also for non-signatories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention For instance, break it anywhere in the world by killing civilians, and enter my country (say, as a refugee), and you'll be prosecuted if caught. There's even a recent example (a man got life sentence for what he did in Rwandan conflict; the life sentence here is practically something like 12 years).
ptaipale 10y ago
Just to provide a reference for what you say: to have a "war", one does not need a nation state. And the Geneva conventions on laws of war do apply to armies and militias regardless of whether they are of a recognized nation state. The conventions apply in civil wars, too. The Daish (IS) fighters are in gross breach of laws of war even though no one recognizes their "state". The collection of the Geneva conventions is available in many places, here is the site of IRCR: https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/g... There used to be a nice, simple presentation of the laws of war at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ but now you get 500 Internal Server Error for the archives. However, to be "at war with terrorism" is unfortunately a very difficult position. Definition of terrorism if by necessity quite vague and problematic. (What is "freedom fighter" for one party or at one time may be a "terrorist" for another or at another time). -- Edit: I see you sourced the ICRC site for conventions yourself.

by berntb 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

> Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. Certainly we can be at war with a non-state actor (we clearly are). But our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear. For wars not against nation states, there must still be some sort of due process for prisoners. The idea that being at war with some entity gives us the right to retain arbitrary people indefinitely, without even proving that they have participated in that entity, is morally unacceptable. > Do you have references? The world's law experts don't seem to agree... Do you have an references to the claim that law experts don't agree? There are a few treaties about war prisoners but they apply to signatories, which clans etc are not. Beyond that, "laws of war" have historically been defined by the victors. I'm not aware of a body of law that applies to wars universally, nor do I believe one could exist. (Who could enforce it?) > that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. You could argue that for civil wars at least both sides would effectively be signatories if the nation as a whole was a signatory before the war began. > You also claim that the Taliban never was a government? They had control of a large part of Afghanistan. And they are still fighting, along with their allies. I assume you don't argue that a war stops being a war when one side lose control of their capital? I don't claim any of that. I claim that Afghanistan is at least officially no longer ruled by the Taliban. We don't recognize them as the legitimate government. If we accept that we are no longer at war with Afghanistan then we must according to the Geneva conventions release any prisoners of war captured during the war with Afghanistan. Any enemy combatants not deemed prisoners of war should be given some sort of due process. Again, the idea that being at war against terrorism gives us the right to indefinitely detain arbitrary people is morally unacceptable. > You ignored my argument. > Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.... ] > The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. > The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. > Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... I don't see that I made any of those claims, nor do I feel like I ignored your argument. I don't believe that being a signatory on the Geneva convention in any way gives us a right to indefinitely detain people with no reasonable path to release and no proof of involvement in the conflict. Even if legally we can make that argument, I think it's morally repugnant.

ptaipale 10y ago
>No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. No, they do not apply only to nation states. They apply to combatants, whether of a nation state or not. See the Geneva conventions.
- dpark 10y ago
  Generally referring to the "Geneva conventions" is not a useful citation. There are hundreds of articles in the conventions. Can you point out where the conventions purport to apply to all combatants? https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-590005?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-59... In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. By my reading, this applies to conflicts between signatories or conflicts involving a signatory and a non-signatory who accepts the terms of the convention. So not strictly nation states, but also not every party to every conflict.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    GCIV, Article 3 i.e. the "Next" after your link is about conflicts within a country, in cases where the parties are not High Contracting Parties. This is treated as customary international law, based on a UN Security Council conclusion in 1993 making it binding also for non-signatories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention For instance, break it anywhere in the world by killing civilians, and enter my country (say, as a refugee), and you'll be prosecuted if caught. There's even a recent example (a man got life sentence for what he did in Rwandan conflict; the life sentence here is practically something like 12 years).

ptaipale 10y ago

Just to provide a reference for what you say: to have a "war", one does not need a nation state. And the Geneva conventions on laws of war do apply to armies and militias regardless of whether they are of a recognized nation state. The conventions apply in civil wars, too. The Daish (IS) fighters are in gross breach of laws of war even though no one recognizes their "state". The collection of the Geneva conventions is available in many places, here is the site of IRCR: https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/g... There used to be a nice, simple presentation of the laws of war at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ but now you get 500 Internal Server Error for the archives. However, to be "at war with terrorism" is unfortunately a very difficult position. Definition of terrorism if by necessity quite vague and problematic. (What is "freedom fighter" for one party or at one time may be a "terrorist" for another or at another time). -- Edit: I see you sourced the ICRC site for conventions yourself.