>He is speaking of 9/11. al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.<
i´m aware of the fact that al qaeda was responsible for 9/11
but not every one fighting the coalition forces in iraq and afgansitan is an al quaida member nor does every body shares their goal.
>By proxy. If that someone is a member of al Qaeda then he is one of the “they” that attacked America on American soil on 9/11.
The legal concept is “Vicarious Liability”. An organization is responsible for the acts of its employees or volunteers and can be held liable for their actions.<
again not every one especially in iraq is fighting because Al Quaida, many of them fight only to get coalition forces out because they think they are occupying their country.
but i guess there are many different reasons and interessts why people fight in iraq.
>It certainly is if you are an Unlawful Combattant: that is to say, not a recognized member of a regular armed force.<
i guess we can both argue hours about this point and will never find a real suitable position. it depends on every ones personal definition. was the french resistance in WW2 a terrorist organisation or freedom fighters because they
fought occupying german troops? do the coalition forces have legal status to be in iraq or are they just brutal occupyiers.....? is someone who still fights a war against forreign troops after the regular forces have lost the war or the government has surrendered (or was forced too) a patriot or a terrorist?... this list goes on and on. not easy to answer.
>They do that as well.<
yes this happens very often (this is terrorism) but not every one fights this way.
>No, it is a War Crime if you are an Unlawful Combattant. In the case of the HumVee, the charge would be First Degree Murder or Murders and Unauthorized Destruction of US Government Property.<
like pointed out before we could argue hours about unlawful or not or if the presence of soldiers in iraq is lawfull or not.
>So if I went to Austria and started shooting Austrian soldiers, I would be “just fighting”?<
no it would be murder. but when this soldiers would be stationed in Your country or occupying it would be different
>They are only POWs if they are lawful combattants. The people in GITMO are not. There is neither need nor reason to release them anytime before the much-awaited Second Coming. They don’t really even need to be tried: they can sit there and rot from a legal perspective.
Moreover, the US did not sign that portion of the Geneva Convention that would pertain to this situation. Other countries like mine (NZ) did. So did Austria. America did not.<
maybe there is no law for this kind of situation right now
but only because this has not been regulated by international law doesn´t nessersary makes it the right thing to do don´t you think?
>Indeed, the Iraq Army fights alongside the US Troops. That’s not difficult: that’s bloody marvelous!<
correct they (the more or less new founded iraqi army)does this but do we really know how many of the insurgent have been former iraqi soldiers?
>It’s really clear, actually. Iraq has a government and they have courts and they have perfectly-acceptable Rule of Law. They used both when they hanged Saddam Hussein and his henchmen: the US was not involved in that decision.<
You really think that the “iraqi government” can do what ever they want and the US has really no “influence”?
yes the US did not official influence the hanging of saddam
because there was no need after they had given “power” to his enemys. but would you really bet your money on it that they wouldn´t if the iraqi would have desided different and set saddam free?
>It is not necessary to kill civilians to be a terrorist. The people who blew up the USS Cole on 17 October 2000 were terrorists: no civilians were killed, only 17 US sailors.<
in this case true. this was a terror act.
>The only Freedom Fighters in Iraq were wearing Coalition uniforms, mate. Everyone they killed were terrorists, unlawful combattants, or noncombattant civilian casualties — the latter of which the United States tries desperately hard to minimize: moreso than any major power in world history.<
i never said that US and coalition forces intentional targed civilians. again we could argue about “unlawful” combattants.
>What justifications do you see for muslim extremists, islamic terrorists, jihadis and the other “freedom fighters” in this war? I am truly curious to know.<
i have never said that terrorism is a tolerable or justified form to reach anything.
> i´m aware of the fact that al qaeda was responsible for 9/11 but not every one fighting the coalition forces in iraq and afgansitan is an al quaida member nor does every body shares their goal.
Some are Taliban, some are neither just local yahoos. It matters not a whit who they are or what their goal is: if they are not members of a regular Armed Force and they are engaged in combat then they are unlawful combattants. As such, they belong in GITMO.
> again not every one especially in iraq is fighting because Al Quaida, many of them fight only to get coalition forces out because they think they are occupying their country.
Fair enough only if they are uniformed members of a regular armed force. If they are not, they are unlawful enemy combattants and they belong at GITMO if captured.
> but i guess there are many different reasons and interessts why people fight in iraq.
That may be so, and most of those reasons result in going to GITMO if captured as an unlawful enemy combattant.
> i guess we can both argue hours about this point and will never find a real suitable position.
There is nothing to argue about: either they are lawful combattants or they are unlawful combattants. That much is very clear from the Laws of War.
The people on GITMO are unlawful combattants. Not POWs. That, too, is crystal clear.
> it depends on every ones personal definition.
No, it doesn’t. The definition is clear, as is the law that drives the definition. There is no room for ambiguity.
> was the french resistance in WW2 a terrorist organisation or freedom fighters because they fought occupying german troops?
Yes, and when the German army captured them they were treated as unlawful enemy combattants and usually tortured and shot.
> do the coalition forces have legal status to be in iraq or are they just brutal occupyiers.....?
They have legal status: the Iraqi government is more than happy for them to be there. They are not brutal occupiers: they have shown true Christian forbearance with the enemy, to the point of affording them courtesies that nearly no other army would.
> is someone who still fights a war against forreign troops after the regular forces have lost the war or the government has surrendered (or was forced too) a patriot or a terrorist?
He is an unlawful combattant if he is not wearing his country’s uniform. Whether you want to give him a colorful label like “patriot” or “Terrorist or “Partizan” or “Spy” or “Resistence” is a silly point and irrelevant.
> ... this list goes on and on. not easy to answer.
It is blood-simple, actually: the only people with any business fighting during wartime wear uniforms. Everyone else is an unlawful combattant that runs the risk of not being covered by the Laws of War if captured.
> yes this happens very often (this is terrorism) but not every one fights this way.
It does not matter how they fight. If they are unlawful enemy combattants they run the risk of not being covered by the Laws of War if they are captured.
> like pointed out before we could argue hours about unlawful or not or if the presence of soldiers in iraq is lawfull or not.
There is no argument to be had, really. The Coalition is lawfully in Iraq. The government of Iraq says so.
> no it would be murder. but when this soldiers would be stationed in Your country or occupying it would be different
No, it wouldn’t. I would have no business killing Austrian soldiers if they were in New Zealand unless I was in some sort of New Zealand uniform. And you can bet that I would be if Austria invaded us. First, though, Austria would have to get a navy.
> maybe there is no law for this kind of situation right now
but only because this has not been regulated by international law doesn´t nessersary makes it the right thing to do don´t you think?
I think it is perfectly OK to do. International Law is way over-rated because usually only the Americans, Canadians, British, French, Australians and New Zealanders follow it. Everybody else ignores it as they see fit.
> correct they (the more or less new founded iraqi army)does this but do we really know how many of the insurgent have been former iraqi soldiers?
That matters not a whit: their leader was deposed, tried and suitably hanged. It is their duty now to take instructions from the new, legal government in Baghdad. It is not their duty to continue fighting: if they do, they are traitors — in other words, unlawful enemy combattants and they are at risk of either a firing squad or the gallows.
> You really think that the “iraqi government” can do what ever they want and the US has really no “influence”?
The US may make suggestions, which the Iraqi government can consider and either action or not. They are a Sovereign nation. As it stands right now, it is advantageous to Iraq to seriously consider anything the US has by way of suggestion: after all, they haven’t been billed for the war. Yet.
> yes the US did not official influence the hanging of saddam because there was no need after they had given “power” to his enemys.
They didn’t need to, either: the Iraqi court found him guilty of breaking perfectly-good Iraqi laws, for which the prescribed punishment was death.
> but would you really bet your money on it that they wouldn´t if the iraqi would have desided different and set saddam free?
They would never have done that, for obvious reasons. And if they did, the US would only capture him again and this time try him on US soil: there would have been a few laws that he had broken for sure. He could then add to their collection of deposed despots rotting in US gaols, like Manuel Noriega.
> i never said that US and coalition forces intentional targed civilians. again we could argue about “unlawful” combattants.
Not reasonably we couldn’t. With very few exceptions, lawful combattants wear the uniform of a nation involved in the combat. Everybody else is an unlawful combattant.
Yes, it really is that simple.
> i have never said that terrorism is a tolerable or justified form to reach anything.
So why then do you feel it is important to present two sides to this story? This really is a black-and-white situation: no room for shades of grey.