tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post8345295044330281513..comments2023-09-01T09:38:54.262-04:00Comments on Dumb Looks Still Free: What is necessary to find terrorists to be Pirates?A Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-56799826315007492632007-08-25T08:01:00.000-04:002007-08-25T08:01:00.000-04:00Harrison - Fascinating disquisition there!The typ...Harrison - Fascinating disquisition there!<BR/><BR/>The type of warfare being used by aQ is, by the view of a Sovereign State, as cited by Vattel: illegitimate and informal wars, or predatory wars without lawful (in the form of a Nation State sponsor) authority or (again in the Nation State realm) without apparent cause. The type of war by al Qaeda is actually all of those things and is typified by having no Nation State backing.<BR/><BR/>The US being formed under the conception of Nation State of the 18th century <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/08/murky-lines-of-authority.html" REL="nofollow">also has view on this</A>, as seen by Blackstone in his chapter on <A HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch5.htm" REL="nofollow">Offenses against the law of nations</A>:<BR/>"III. LASTLY, <B>the crime of piracy, or robbery and depredation upon the high feas, is an offence againft the univerfal law of fociety</B> ; a pirate being, according to fir Edward Coke k, boftis humani generis. <B>As therefore he has renounced all the benefits of fociety and government, and has reduced himfelf afrefh to the favage ftate of nature, by declaring war againft all mankind, all mankind muft declare war againft him : fo that every community hath a right, by the rule of felf-defence, to inflict that punifhment upon him, which every individual would in a ftate of nature have been otherwife entitled to do, any invafion of his perfon or perfonal property</B>."<BR/><BR/>To the US, even though we do *not* follow Edward Coke's court and the Admiralty Court was set up under full Common Law guidelines in the US, that statement of having renounced society and government and the benefits of both, then make such individuals truly 'outlaws'. Outside the protection of the law.<BR/><BR/>International justice, in this, is in the declaration of such outlaws to be waging predatory war upon mankind as a whole. Later in Blackstone, we see the following: "<B>THE offence of piracy, by common law, confifts in committing thofe act of robbery and depredation upon the high feas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there</B> n. as, by ftatute 11&12 W.III.c.7. if any natural born fubjeft commits any act of hoftility upon the high feas, againft others of his majefty's fubjefts, under colour of a commiffion from any foreign power ; <B>this, though it would only be an act of war in an alien, fhall be conftrued piracy in a fubject</B>."<BR/><BR/>Here the 'subject' is the individual who is a citizen of a Nation State, but that has turned to outlawry and depredation upon the high seas. Do note that while this would be a felony at home, in the US treason comes to mind, when conducted abroad by outlaw actors, the same definition applies to outlaws committing war: pirate.<BR/><BR/>Piracy upon the high seas is the best known part of this, but the activity of illegitimate warfare, on land or sea, is, as you pointed out, a crime against the Nation State system. It is not only a crime against a single Nation, but against *all* Nations. That is why the US allows for its high seas definition, other Nations to declare an organization piratical and use that as a basis for treating them the same. The unjust war waged via illegitimate means is a crime against all Nations. The Navies of the 16th - 17th centuries would coordinate on missions to go against pirates on the high seas. On land the 'banditti' and land based brigand, who fights only for themselves and no Nation would get similar treatment.<BR/><BR/>That is why Abraham Lincoln would promulgate those Field Manual activities and that would be upheld to near the end of the 19th century. When captured on the field of battle, such individuals have *no* legality. Today they are 'illegal enemy combatants' which is the exact concept used for piracy, and Lincoln, and Presidents after him, had their forces use summary judgments upon those captured doing those activities.<BR/><BR/>This brings up the interesting case in that deciding those in Guantanamo to BE 'illegal enemy combatants' the courts have actually just performed the SOLE finding necessary for piracy. In 18 USC 1651 there is NO other finding necessary: illegal combatants waging illegitimate war upon the United States. That single and sole finding is sufficient grounds for life imprisonment. Note that this is wholly different than 'espionage' which has other factors like observing and passing information to a TRUE and DECLARED enemy of a Nation State. Pirates wage illegitimate war for their own, personal, ends against Nations.<BR/><BR/>This common law declaration and view, which shifted from Admiralty Court to Federal Court in the US, now indicates a lack of understanding by the legal community on both the civilian and military side on how to actually handle those picked up as 'illegal enemy combatants' because we have not seen their like for nearly two centuries.<BR/><BR/>What is even worse is that this research of mine took, cumulatively, about 2 weeks of work for me, meaning at least 2 months for anyone else. Why have we lived for nearly 6 years under ANY other viewpoint? We cannot ratify the GC of 1977 because of this view of the US, and yet we have forgotten it completely in trying to address 'terrorism'. 'Terrorism' is an activity taken up by those waging illegitimate and unjust war. The crime that describes that form of warfare is the civil one of piracy. Trying to address 'terrorism' separately would be like trying to address 'close assault tactics' in the UCMJ: an asinine thing to do. It is but a method or means, but the activity as a class is illegitimate and unjust war of depredation. That is the 18th and 19th century logic behind the law of nations as used by the US at its founding. We look back before Coke and Henry VIII for original jurisdictional precedent, but utilize their outlooks and those of Lord Stowall (which are used as guideline, not precedent). From that the US varies from the British system and those of other colonies now become Nations. Thus the 'rough and ready' form of view of the US was codified in the Piracy statutes and this one I am citing here is the first of them, and most basic.<BR/><BR/>And because it *is* basic that should make it a simple case to prosecute. al Qaeda has expounded at length on their going to war with the US (1996 and 1998, plus other cites by Saudi Arabia), India, UK, Pakistan, Israel, and many, many others. They have not only waged illegitimate war but even done so against a National vessel and Emissary of the US to Yemen. In and of itself, that is piracy. This was done not only against the USS Cole but was tried against USS The Sullivans: failure to carry out a bombing does not indicate lack of want to carry it out and every indication of wanting to do so. That is repeated attempts to perform that same act of illegitimate and unjust war. The heading under which illegitimate and unjust war, personal war or other similar acts falls: Piracy.<BR/><BR/>If we can't dispense with terrorism and call this for what it *is*, then we are well nigh on the road to the dissolving of the Nation State as we no longer *understand it* as a concept. <BR/><BR/>That is highly worrying.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-20438990079628371782007-08-25T00:55:00.000-04:002007-08-25T00:55:00.000-04:00By expounding upon the concept of sovereignty that...By expounding upon the concept of sovereignty that revolves around and defines the international system of states, and taking into account that sovereignty has been coveted as a privilege, a license to legally participate in the international system and be recognised for its right to do so, it seems logical to assume that any terminologies, conceptualisations and definitions regarding the preservation or violation of sovereignty in terms of territoriality or constitutional independence <I>must</I> be attuned to the reality that every act by a sovereign or non-sovereign actor is judged according to that concept and the upholding of the pillars of sovereignty.<BR/><BR/>I would perhaps attempt to refine the term attached to aQ - 'unjust aggressor'. First of all, aQ being a non-sovereign actor that exploits the transnationalistic reach of terrorism, ideology and arms sales - it does not qualify as being even <I>eligible</I> as an entity to be judged in the context of international justice. International justice - like international law - is <I>not</I> a doctrine governing how each person in every sovereign state should be judged by an external authority other than the state which he or she resides in: it is akin to the Law of Nations, whereby the behaviour of <I>nations</I> with relation to other <I>nations</I> is regulated by certain rules agreed upon by the nations themselves. I make this distinction because it should not be conflated with the transnational strain of International Justice and its embrace of 'terrorist rights' and Kantianesque 'international society' that presupposes moral equivalence.<BR/><BR/>International justice in this aspect thus acts as a regulating mechanism in determining which <I>sovereign</I> actors are justified in waging wars, which of them are 'just'; which actors are 'unjust' in pursuing military options, and which sovereign actors are being 'unjustly' besieged and targeted for such violation of sovereignty. Of course, international justice is akin to a convention that states themselves choose whether to adhere to or not - their possession of international legal sovereignty bestows them with the right to join such a convention or withdraw from one. Those who choose to join and respect the rules of this doctrine are the same actors tasked with the responsibility of defending the doctrine itself, and they are automatically accorded the right to judge whether a questionable act by a sovereign is 'just' or 'unjust' according to the principles of sovereignty as defined by the convention.<BR/><BR/>aQ, by disqualifying itself as a sovereign actor, is denied both the right to be recognised as an equal participant in international relations and the right to be judged according to its course of action whether it is justifiable in terms of moral or altruistic reasoning. aQ's actions are devoid of legitimacy <I>and</I> justification in this international system of sovereign states. No extent of 'divinely granted right' can alter that fact, unless the day comes when all sovereign actors accept that religious doctrines, not agreed-upon rules and conventions, govern relations between states.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the term 'unjust' does not seem at all appropriate for aQ, since the entity falls outside the jurisdiction of the international system of states. It does not need to be judged in this context, no matter how obvious its transgressions are. What should be more apparent and therefore recognised by sovereign powers is that aQ is an invalid anomaly that threatens the preservation of the system which orders relations between themselves, and thus should be exterminated by whatever means necessary. No 'right' or 'wrong',no moral dilemma with regard to the scales of justice, but the realist perspective on this issue dictates that this decision taken by states is amoral and purely for rational interests.<BR/><BR/>By extension, those sovereign actors whose rational interests coincide with the survivability of entities such as aQ, and who are harbouring elements of aQ or providing it with the resources necessary to flourish are putting themselves at risk of violation of their own membership in the international system. Sovereignty as a privilege can be easily withdrawn should its defenders judge that the transgressor is exploiting the privilege itself to sanction and support illegitimate and unjustifiable acts of violation of other participating states' sovereignties. This act of withdrawal requires no transnational entity or overarching authority to approve, but it is up to each sovereign state to safeguard its own sovereignty and therefore respond convincingly to communicate its intent to punish such transgressions for exploiting its position within the system. And that points to the right of sovereign powers to deny other sovereign powers the right to undermine the very doctrine that recognises them as legitimate actors.Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17688001023588334672noreply@blogger.com