LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
If an “enemy combatant” is on the battlefield, engaged in fighting, then there is no issue with killing him if the opportunity arises. If he attempts to surrender then notwithstanding his apparent and alleged lack of protection under the Geneva Convention it could be said that there is nonetheless a duty to accept his surrender rather than to kill him, and to process him according to what is lawful even if this should vary (apparently and allegedly) from the norms of the Geneva Convention.
The question must be asked however, what and where is the battlefield? The easy answer would be to say that the battlefield is where the battle takes place within a designated warzone, but this is far from satisfactory in what is an asymmetrical conflict akin to guerrilla or partisan warfare, where the battlefield remains “where the battle takes place” but is of a highly fluid nature with no frontline.
The battlefield is then anywhere that fighting breaks out within the warzone, often determined by the enemy. But still this is unsatisfactory, for it hands an enormous advantage to the enemy to determine where and when battle shall take place, (Generalship 101), and since in denying him this advantage, anywhere in the warzone may be made the battlefield upon our initiation, having determined targets or objectives of value to our cause, we may imply that the battlefield is in fact anywhere within the warzone that either side chooses it to be.
Thus we may kill or capture anywhere within the warzone, which raises the question as to what is the warzone? Clearly there is great legal precedent we can refer to here arising from Nuremberg and other international law which determines that we may not simply choose to fight a war – designate a warzone - where there is no lawful cause to do so. For instance, we may not make Pakistan part of our designated warzone in the context of Afghanistan, (a properly designated warzone), without the permission of Pakistan or attack on us by Pakistan.
From this we can say that it is perfectly in order to kill or capture “enemy combatants” anywhere we find them within the warzone, whether the battle be initiated by us or by them and whether there is a battle or a ready surrender to us without a shot being fired.
Kill or capture away from the warzone however is more problematic. Its justification, if there can be such at all, must be based on intelligence evidence of active support for the enemy or past or planned participation in the fighting – but this is not enough when the suspect is located in a jurisdiction quite distinct from the warzone and not participating in the fighting at the time such that we might rely on our prior arguments.
If we are to proceed lawfully, then we cannot simply enter another territory without permission with the intent to murder or kidnap – which is after all what we are talking about when these things occur outside of the warzone and outside of lawful authorisation. Rather we should have to rely on the criminal justice system of the territory, assuming an offence has taken place or is being planned under the law of the territory, to arrest, try and convict the person of interest or to arrange for his extradition into our own criminal justice system as appropriate. If no offence has taken place or is being planned under that territory’s law then we must consider our hands tied as far as direct action is concerned – though we reserve of course the means to exert economic and diplomatic pressure towards our aims.
But do we need to proceed lawfully? Certainly we do not want to it would appear, but I would argue that we do need to, however unsatisfactory it may seem when the blood is up and vengeance dominates our thoughts. Our problem ultimately here stems from decades of poor and even hostile policies towards those who have taken arms against us, and for whom we are the epitome of unlawful evil as a consequence. Any of us, faced with a like situation, might take the same stand and action as those facing us now.
If we go about our business in such a way as to confirm their view of us as unlawful evildoers, we can only expect this to become their best recruiting sergeant and just as importantly a means to silence the dissent of more moderate Muslims to radical, fundamentalist and hostile worldviews. If meanwhile we show that much of our strength comes from a firm belief in lawful, just and righteous behaviour, we take this away from the enemy and hurt him much more seriously than we might by adopting his own manners and methods, by demonstrating that we are not the bad guys and reducing the potential for further radicalisation.
Our dilemna may be summed up as a question of whether it is right that maketh might or might which maketh right. Let us have faith that the former rather than the latter is the case.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the &qu... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread