5 ms·

Sorry but there was no act of war because Osama never represented political entity that could declare war on the US. And there are good reasons why the Israelis

Sorry but there was no act of war because Osama never represented political entity that could declare war on the US. And there are good reasons why the Israelis went to such pains to bring Adolf Eichmann to trial instead of just shooting him in Argentina. Also murder is crime in Pakistan ... so if there was Pakistani rule of law the navy seals are murderers.

rayiner 14y ago
That's why I used the Barbary Pirate situation. The Barbary privateers were loosely affiliated with and supported by the government in Tripoli (which is the legal entity against which we declared war), but were not really an organized army acting on behalf of the state as we think of such things today. In any case, what Osama did would clearly be an act of war if he had been a general acting on the orders of a government. So what makes it not an act of war just because he's acting on behalf of an entity that isn't a sovereign state? Surely, it is most logical to measure the justifiable response to an action in terms of the nature of the action itself, not the political affiliation of the actor. Finally, as you note, it's hard to say that there is any rule of law in Pakistan. Laws only have meaning to the extent courts have jurisdiction to enforce them. "Murder" isn't a universal constant--it's a law defined in the context of some sovereign entity's legislative jurisdiction. Killing a terrorist on the battlefield is not murder if there is no court that has jurisdiction over the actor that would call it murder. Indeed, it seems utterly non-sensical to me to argue that someone like Osama, that has rejected the criminal jurisdiction of any state, can turn around and claim the protection of the laws of that state.
tptacek 14y ago
I don't think there's a way to make the logic you're employing work. Wars are routinely fought between entities that do not recognize the sovereignty of their adversaries; see, for instance, every civil war ever. We fought one of those too. On the nuts and bolts, the distinction you're trying to draw is also moot; Congress explicitly authorized: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons If you'd like to look this up in the Geneva Conventions, you'll find GCIV isn't particularly helpful to your argument; it refers to "persons taking active part in hostilities" or "combatants", not nation-state actors, and explicitly acknowledges conflicts that occur where one side or the other doesn't acknowledge a state of "war". And "the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". About the best I think you can say is that striking Bin Laden could have been an act of war against Pakistan. Somehow, I don't think they're going to follow up on that.

rayiner 14y ago

That's why I used the Barbary Pirate situation. The Barbary privateers were loosely affiliated with and supported by the government in Tripoli (which is the legal entity against which we declared war), but were not really an organized army acting on behalf of the state as we think of such things today. In any case, what Osama did would clearly be an act of war if he had been a general acting on the orders of a government. So what makes it not an act of war just because he's acting on behalf of an entity that isn't a sovereign state? Surely, it is most logical to measure the justifiable response to an action in terms of the nature of the action itself, not the political affiliation of the actor. Finally, as you note, it's hard to say that there is any rule of law in Pakistan. Laws only have meaning to the extent courts have jurisdiction to enforce them. "Murder" isn't a universal constant--it's a law defined in the context of some sovereign entity's legislative jurisdiction. Killing a terrorist on the battlefield is not murder if there is no court that has jurisdiction over the actor that would call it murder. Indeed, it seems utterly non-sensical to me to argue that someone like Osama, that has rejected the criminal jurisdiction of any state, can turn around and claim the protection of the laws of that state.

tptacek 14y ago

I don't think there's a way to make the logic you're employing work. Wars are routinely fought between entities that do not recognize the sovereignty of their adversaries; see, for instance, every civil war ever. We fought one of those too. On the nuts and bolts, the distinction you're trying to draw is also moot; Congress explicitly authorized: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons If you'd like to look this up in the Geneva Conventions, you'll find GCIV isn't particularly helpful to your argument; it refers to "persons taking active part in hostilities" or "combatants", not nation-state actors, and explicitly acknowledges conflicts that occur where one side or the other doesn't acknowledge a state of "war". And "the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". About the best I think you can say is that striking Bin Laden could have been an act of war against Pakistan. Somehow, I don't think they're going to follow up on that.