3 ms·

Lets not forget military intelligence; however, since for the first time the US is at war with non-state actors, both foreign and domestic, it should be assumed

Lets not forget military intelligence; however, since for the first time the US is at war with non-state actors, both foreign and domestic, it should be assumed US military now has global jurisdiction over intelligence. Of course one would think their jurisdiction should be limited to targeting 1 of the 45-50 named enemy combatant terrorist organizations, but I will go out on a limb and say they are not. In fact I would probably fall out of my chair in shock if a single politician, fbi/cia/nsa/doj agent, or military official could name the terrorist organizations we are at war with.

mpyne 13y ago
This is not the first time America has been at war with non-state actors.
- will_brown 13y ago
  Mind expanding on other US wars against non-state actors? I assume you are not talking about "The War on Drugs" or referencing the Civil War. Traditionally the Freedom of Assembly is a Right guaranteed to US citizens by the Bill of Rights, on par with Freedom of Speech. I recognize in modern history (post WWII) people were tried for their association to Communism, but even then people were "tried" by courts of law not subject to extra judicial killings as enemy combatants.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Probably the most well-known example was the usage of the U.S. Army against the roving bandits led by Pancho Villa before WWI. This experience was actually formative in the experience of Gen. Pershing who later led U.S. troops in WWI, but that's a different story. Later in the century Congress has authorized the use of military force against Lebanese internal unrest that threatened to topple the government in 1958 (Operation Blue Bat). Later use of force would be authorized in Lebanon again, with UN backing. Though to maintain the peace and not aggressive warfare per se, it did result in U.S. fatalities and other casualties, and the U.S. did fire live rounds. "Shay's Rebellion" (the Whiskey Rebellion) would also technically count I suppose, as President Washington did raise an army and march it to Pennsylvania, though the rebels dispersed without much bloodshed. Also easily overlooked, but the U.S. often fought against pirates on the high seas, who are non-state actors by definition. Sometimes Congress made specific authorizations for them, sometimes not, but the U.S. did fight. An interesting example is the "Utah War" where the Federal government and Mormon settlers feuded over land (of all things). Though no actual battles took place bases were attacked on both sides before the government won. The conflict itself extended over a year though, so it was not just some flash-in-the-pan.
    - will_brown 13y ago
      Interesting examples, I appreciate your distinction using legal terms such as "use of force". That said my use of the word "War" is not very helpful and I should have used "armed conflict". I would not disagree with your examples, but certainly the post WWII (UN era) examples are the most useful for purpose of legal precedent. Aside from Lebanon there are similar instances of the US intervening on behalf of democratically elected governments, especially in Africa, but as you noted the US role is on a sliding scale when generally the use of force is not authorized. The pirates is very interesting too, I know there are other instances such as Greek pirates (pre UN era) but assuming your referencing "Somali pirates", Somalia is unusual in that it is a recognized State with no recognized government, but here I would not say this is a declared war rather the authorized use of force to protect vessals on the high seas, but I have to concede it is fairly certain some missions were more target specific. I still think the US "War on Terror" is setting all kinds of precedent as to US authorized use of force against non-state actors, but I am far from saying your position is wrong and the burden is on me to express myself more clearly and not put something in its most simple terms out of convenience, and I am happy to enjoy a spirited exchange of ideas on HN.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        If you're still interested in the topic one of the links I came across yesterday while researching my own answer is a law blog's book review of a text that aims to examine the legality of the use of armed force against "non-state actors". http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-force-against-non-state-actors/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-f... I haven't read the book myself but it does look interesting. As far as the pirates I was mentioning, it wasn't actually about the Somali pirates but the ones in the age of sail. Back then pirates operating under the authority of a nation-state were "privateers" and carried a letter of marque. Non-state pirates were reviled internationally and hunted down and destroyed wherever they were seen. I do agree to uneasiness about the "war on terror" (going on 12 years now) but at the same time I think it's inevitable that the U.S. will have to set the precedent; no other nation is such a lightning rod as the U.S. is now, with the possible exception of Israel. But who knows, maybe we as grouping of nations will cooperate to revise the Geneva Conventions in response to the requirements for counter-terrorism?

mpyne 13y ago

This is not the first time America has been at war with non-state actors.

will_brown 13y ago
Mind expanding on other US wars against non-state actors? I assume you are not talking about "The War on Drugs" or referencing the Civil War. Traditionally the Freedom of Assembly is a Right guaranteed to US citizens by the Bill of Rights, on par with Freedom of Speech. I recognize in modern history (post WWII) people were tried for their association to Communism, but even then people were "tried" by courts of law not subject to extra judicial killings as enemy combatants.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Probably the most well-known example was the usage of the U.S. Army against the roving bandits led by Pancho Villa before WWI. This experience was actually formative in the experience of Gen. Pershing who later led U.S. troops in WWI, but that's a different story. Later in the century Congress has authorized the use of military force against Lebanese internal unrest that threatened to topple the government in 1958 (Operation Blue Bat). Later use of force would be authorized in Lebanon again, with UN backing. Though to maintain the peace and not aggressive warfare per se, it did result in U.S. fatalities and other casualties, and the U.S. did fire live rounds. "Shay's Rebellion" (the Whiskey Rebellion) would also technically count I suppose, as President Washington did raise an army and march it to Pennsylvania, though the rebels dispersed without much bloodshed. Also easily overlooked, but the U.S. often fought against pirates on the high seas, who are non-state actors by definition. Sometimes Congress made specific authorizations for them, sometimes not, but the U.S. did fight. An interesting example is the "Utah War" where the Federal government and Mormon settlers feuded over land (of all things). Though no actual battles took place bases were attacked on both sides before the government won. The conflict itself extended over a year though, so it was not just some flash-in-the-pan.
  - will_brown 13y ago
    Interesting examples, I appreciate your distinction using legal terms such as "use of force". That said my use of the word "War" is not very helpful and I should have used "armed conflict". I would not disagree with your examples, but certainly the post WWII (UN era) examples are the most useful for purpose of legal precedent. Aside from Lebanon there are similar instances of the US intervening on behalf of democratically elected governments, especially in Africa, but as you noted the US role is on a sliding scale when generally the use of force is not authorized. The pirates is very interesting too, I know there are other instances such as Greek pirates (pre UN era) but assuming your referencing "Somali pirates", Somalia is unusual in that it is a recognized State with no recognized government, but here I would not say this is a declared war rather the authorized use of force to protect vessals on the high seas, but I have to concede it is fairly certain some missions were more target specific. I still think the US "War on Terror" is setting all kinds of precedent as to US authorized use of force against non-state actors, but I am far from saying your position is wrong and the burden is on me to express myself more clearly and not put something in its most simple terms out of convenience, and I am happy to enjoy a spirited exchange of ideas on HN.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      If you're still interested in the topic one of the links I came across yesterday while researching my own answer is a law blog's book review of a text that aims to examine the legality of the use of armed force against "non-state actors". http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-force-against-non-state-actors/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-f... I haven't read the book myself but it does look interesting. As far as the pirates I was mentioning, it wasn't actually about the Somali pirates but the ones in the age of sail. Back then pirates operating under the authority of a nation-state were "privateers" and carried a letter of marque. Non-state pirates were reviled internationally and hunted down and destroyed wherever they were seen. I do agree to uneasiness about the "war on terror" (going on 12 years now) but at the same time I think it's inevitable that the U.S. will have to set the precedent; no other nation is such a lightning rod as the U.S. is now, with the possible exception of Israel. But who knows, maybe we as grouping of nations will cooperate to revise the Geneva Conventions in response to the requirements for counter-terrorism?