Comments on: Mzoudi Update

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:57:06 +0000

Doesn’t the Hague Convention just deal with a small subset of public goods?

http://www.icomos.org/hague/hague.convention.html

Likewise, in a modern terror war is there a meaningful distinction between wartime and peacetime?

By: Grendel

Grendel — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:07:41 +0000

For analyses about new wars and conflicts take a look at Mary Kaldor’s works

By: mark safranski

mark safranski — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:15:08 +0000

Dan,

No, not unless they were also members of an armed group. The Hague Convention deals with the context of war and not ideological conflict in peacetime expressed through civil disobedience tactics.

For example under my reasoning, it would have been legal for the British government to try members of Sinn Fein, not because they advocated union with the Republic but because they were the political wing of the IRA, an armed group engaged in a terror war with Britain. Fortunately for Gerry Adams, the Brits saw things in a fashionably modern way.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:29:39 +0000

Mark,

A problem with that logic is where on the continuum of violence do you draw the line? Would Civil Rights sit-in workers, who violented other citizens basic human rights, be considered terrorists because their acts were part of a widespread ideological attack on states?

By: mark safranski

mark safranski — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:57:34 +0000

Numerous precedents in International Law during the 20th century would place terrorists behaviorally into the category of spies and saboteurs under the Hague Convention and al Qaida members should be treated accordingly. That is, tried as combatants out of uniform under the Laws of War by a court-martial or military tribunal and appropriately punished if convicted.

Unless acquitted or granted POW status that would mean the firing squad for some and for others a sentence at hard labor in a military prison like Leavenworth.