3 ms·

> What could it possibly be called other than a state sponsored terrorist group? But what does that mean? Is terrorism a crime? If so, anti-terrorist operatio

> What could it possibly be called other than a state sponsored terrorist group? But what does that mean? Is terrorism a crime? If so, anti-terrorist operations are police operations, with the usual consequences. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and the people involved in the operations may face criminal charges for unnecessary violence. Or are terrorists involved in an armed conflict? Then individual combatants are not liable for their actions, unless a court finds they have breached the rules of war. Those are the established frameworks we have. There is no widespread agreement on how to deal with the use of armed force against a group that does not follow the rules of war.

zdragnar 4y ago
They use violence against random targets; their rockets fall on schools as much as military positions. They use civilians as human shields. They're no freedom fighters; they would be an iron boot upon the necks of the Palestinian people. They're not proper soldiers or mercenaries, as they kill without discrimination on their own behalf, not as part of a sovereign government under the rules of war. They have a Martyr's fund that pays families of people killed setting off explosive vests at temples and markets. Whatever you call them, "terrorist" is a perfectly fitting label. There may not be a classic framework for how to define the conflict, but that's just moving the goalpost. The closest thing we have would be for Israel to declare war on their international backers. It would certainly bring the issue to a head, but I doubt it would yield a long term resolution or be an option that causes the least amount of life lost.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Is terrorism a crime? Usually it is a crime, possibly many simultaneous crimes under multiple kinds of law. > If so, anti-terrorist operations are police operations That…doesn’t follow, legally. For a non-terrorism example, insurrection against the US is a crime, but under US law actions against insurrection may be police actions under normal criminal process, or may be internal armed conflict outside of police process (see 10 USC ch. 13, generally.) Espionage is a crime (and doesn't stop being one when it is conducted by agents of a hostile belligerent, whether or not they are citizens.) But while action against such espionage may be a police action, sometimes it is very much not; see, for an example in US law, ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942). > Or are terrorists involved in an armed conflict? Almost invariably, whether or not it is a crime, terrorists are engaged in an armed conflict, either of an international character or not, but (where the laws of war apply) engaged in outside of the laws of war. > Then individual combatants are not liable for their actions Individual combatants are, in fact, liable for their actions, except in armed conflict that is of an international character (before parties to the applicable treaties by treaty, and between other states, in most views, by customary international law) and where those actions are within the laws of war. The clean dichotomy you propose between crime and “armed conflict”, where the two are non-overlapping categories and all response to the former are police matters, all those to the latter or not, and personal accountability exists only in the former is wrong on basically every level. It’s abstractly a very neat, clean, model but it has nothing to do with reality, domestic or international law, or, anything else other than being a very tidy ivory-tower abstraction.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. There are established ways of thinking about civilians and police officers, and about armed conflicts between legitimate groups of combatants who generally respect the rules of war. When you are dealing with a situation that is not a good fit in either framework, things become ambiguous and political in an ugly way.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. The broad structure of the laws we have reflect a (very rough) consensus reification of ethical frameworks. You might prefer to the ethical framework you are describing, but it is by no means a common one when it comes to the subject matter, and it is, I would argue, one that for all its abstract cleanliness at a 30,000’ foot view (e.g., without any definition of what is criminal vs. armed conflict, only the idea that those are the two exclusive and non-overlapping categories of bad behavior) not one which admits of any reasonable application to reality.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      Laws are temporary opinions that vary arbitrarily across jurisdictional boundaries. As an international service, Twitter needs a more universal basis for acceptable behavior than the laws of any single country. Such a basis exists for old-fashioned wars between sovereign states, and for crime and police activity. At least as far as Western countries are concerned. With "terrorists", "heathens", and "heretics", things become ambiguous. Whatever Twitter chooses to do, it becomes political in an ugly way.

zdragnar 4y ago

They use violence against random targets; their rockets fall on schools as much as military positions. They use civilians as human shields. They're no freedom fighters; they would be an iron boot upon the necks of the Palestinian people. They're not proper soldiers or mercenaries, as they kill without discrimination on their own behalf, not as part of a sovereign government under the rules of war. They have a Martyr's fund that pays families of people killed setting off explosive vests at temples and markets. Whatever you call them, "terrorist" is a perfectly fitting label. There may not be a classic framework for how to define the conflict, but that's just moving the goalpost. The closest thing we have would be for Israel to declare war on their international backers. It would certainly bring the issue to a head, but I doubt it would yield a long term resolution or be an option that causes the least amount of life lost.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Is terrorism a crime? Usually it is a crime, possibly many simultaneous crimes under multiple kinds of law. > If so, anti-terrorist operations are police operations That…doesn’t follow, legally. For a non-terrorism example, insurrection against the US is a crime, but under US law actions against insurrection may be police actions under normal criminal process, or may be internal armed conflict outside of police process (see 10 USC ch. 13, generally.) Espionage is a crime (and doesn't stop being one when it is conducted by agents of a hostile belligerent, whether or not they are citizens.) But while action against such espionage may be a police action, sometimes it is very much not; see, for an example in US law, ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942). > Or are terrorists involved in an armed conflict? Almost invariably, whether or not it is a crime, terrorists are engaged in an armed conflict, either of an international character or not, but (where the laws of war apply) engaged in outside of the laws of war. > Then individual combatants are not liable for their actions Individual combatants are, in fact, liable for their actions, except in armed conflict that is of an international character (before parties to the applicable treaties by treaty, and between other states, in most views, by customary international law) and where those actions are within the laws of war. The clean dichotomy you propose between crime and “armed conflict”, where the two are non-overlapping categories and all response to the former are police matters, all those to the latter or not, and personal accountability exists only in the former is wrong on basically every level. It’s abstractly a very neat, clean, model but it has nothing to do with reality, domestic or international law, or, anything else other than being a very tidy ivory-tower abstraction.

jltsiren 4y ago
I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. There are established ways of thinking about civilians and police officers, and about armed conflicts between legitimate groups of combatants who generally respect the rules of war. When you are dealing with a situation that is not a good fit in either framework, things become ambiguous and political in an ugly way.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. The broad structure of the laws we have reflect a (very rough) consensus reification of ethical frameworks. You might prefer to the ethical framework you are describing, but it is by no means a common one when it comes to the subject matter, and it is, I would argue, one that for all its abstract cleanliness at a 30,000’ foot view (e.g., without any definition of what is criminal vs. armed conflict, only the idea that those are the two exclusive and non-overlapping categories of bad behavior) not one which admits of any reasonable application to reality.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Laws are temporary opinions that vary arbitrarily across jurisdictional boundaries. As an international service, Twitter needs a more universal basis for acceptable behavior than the laws of any single country. Such a basis exists for old-fashioned wars between sovereign states, and for crime and police activity. At least as far as Western countries are concerned. With "terrorists", "heathens", and "heretics", things become ambiguous. Whatever Twitter chooses to do, it becomes political in an ugly way.