Insurgents:
Basically we can label them insurgents and kill them all according to IHL standards...then prosecute the ones we don't kill.
"The insurgent forces in Iraq are not part of the Iraqi armed forces, and so under IHL they are thus not entitled to the so-called combatant's privilege. The combatant's privilege permits soldiers to fire on enemy troops during an armed conflict without being prosecuted. That is, insurgents in Iraq have no lawful right to take part in armed conflict and may be legally prosecuted under domestic law for taking up arms and conducting armed attacks. They may also be prosecuted under a Coalition Provisional Authority order that prohibits the possession, transport, concealment, sale, and use of unauthorized firearms, and military weapons, by any individuals other than the coalition forces, Iraqi security police and personnel under the supervision of the coalition and private security companies licensed by the Ministry of the Interior. Insurgents, or any other armed force, who commit war crimes would be subject to prosecution under IHL. All the while, insurgents directly taking part in hostilities make themselves legitimate military targets and are thus subject to attack. "
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq042904.htm#What%20law%20applies%20to%20the%20fighting%20between%20coalition%20forces%20and%20insurgents?Belligerents:
No rights to prosecute...also there is the danger that another country will recognize the belligerent's lawful right to wage war and could gain recognition as a state. Example: Syria recognizes the Iraqi force as a belligerent force...then recognizes territory already controlled by them. Voila! New Iraq is founded.
"Just as, in the eyes of international law, not every armed contest is a war, the quality of belligerents is not recognized as existing in all parties engaged in war. Sovereign states at war are always belligerents. Doubt arises only when one of the parties to the struggle, or both, are not in the enjoyment of political sovereignty. Combatants must therefore be recognized, either implicitly or explicitly, as belligerents. In what case do they enjoy this quality? This depends on circumstances. Generally the quality of belligerents is accorded to members of a confederation which engage in a struggle with each other. The reason of this is, on the one hand, because they are regularly organized and observe the rules of international law; on the other, because the neutral states have neither the wish nor the right to decide which party is in the wrong, the interpretation of a constitutional or federal question being a domestic affair; and finally, for humane reasons, because belligerents are treated more mildly than insurgents."
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy128.htmlJihadists/Islamist/whatever other euphemism commander cuckoobananas creates:
No IHL protections whatsoever...no danger of recognition as a state. Also, most importantly, a prolonged insurgency becomes more likely to be viewed as a belligerency (which opens up a new can of worms).
Why do I bring this boring IHL shit up? Those of us who know this war is illegal need to start referring to the Iraqi forces as belligerents. We need to recognize that they are fighting for the right of self-government and self-determination...and we need to get our troops home ASAP before another one dies for the big fucking lie.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
