"Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... I think the dividing line between criminality and war is not
so much the actions of the perpetrator but the power of the
government to counter the actions.
That is partly right, but not entirely. A major dividing line is the
power of the government to *classify* the actions. The kind of
classification that occurs is dependent on how much knowledge can be
obtained.
Laws place people into different categories, such as those that are
supposed to be in prison and those that are not.
For an ordinary criminal action, a court is the social mechanism used
to decide into which category a defendant is placed.
Ordinary people are given the legal authority to coerce those who are
supposed to be in prison -- and to kill them under certain
circumstances.
However, in the case of a war, it is often not possible for a court to
decide into which category defendants belong, since the people
involved may not be local and may not be individually identified.
In this instance, another governmental mechanism is used, a
declaration of war, or some equivalent. As a result of this action,
all people who possess a certain fairly readily defined
characteristic, such as citizenship in a particular nation, are
defined as the `enemy'.
Ordinary people, now called `soldiers', are given the legal authority
to coerce those who are categorized as the `enemy' -- indeed, to kill
them under certain circumstances.
Note that when individuals can be identified, a court is becoming the
preferred social mechanism. We see, for example, the trials in the
Hague of those who have been arrested and accused of war crimes in the
former Yugoslavia.
Similarly, before attacking the Afganistani government, the US
government sought to extradite Osama Bin Laden, a request that was
refused.
In many circumstances, it either is not possible to identify
individuals or it is not possible to bring those identified to trial
without a war.
The idea behind the `laws of war' is to minimize harm to people
crudely categorized as `the enemy', but who are not doing much, or
any, damage. For example, surrendered enemy should not be killed;
`collateral damage' should be minimized; and only military targets
attacked.
The laws or `guidelines' for war are based, at least in part, on what
is considered reasonably possible.
If I remember rightly, during WWII the average bomb dropped by an
American airplane missed its target by 5000 feet (1.5 km). Axis bombs
also tended to miss. Hence, both sides decided that bombing cities
and killing civilians was acceptable, because that was all that was
possible.
Early hydrogen bombs would destroy such large areas that their use,
too, implied that it is acceptable to kill many civilians.
(Incidentally since those bombs were developed, the US and the USSR
worked on making smaller and smaller nuclear weapons.)
Modern precision guided weapons are a new technology. They enable the
US military to destroy targets with much less `collateral damage' than
before. According to what I have read, only 800 or 900 out of every
1000 bombs dropped will miss their targets. (Some claim that as few
as half or one-quarter miss, but I do not believe that.) This rate
compares to miss rates in the past of 990 out of 1000, or more. A
consequence of this change in technology is that people are able to be
more concerned about `collateral damage' and dead civilians.
Military weakness means that a fighting group uses different
techniques. For example, the Palestinians do not have a navy of their
own. So they cannot blockade the Israeli port on the Gulf of Aqaba
the way the Egyptians did.
Instead, the Palestinians employ suicide bombers. The Palestinian
military leaders have the choice of attempting to kill major Israeli
leaders or focusing on ordinary civilians. While killing governmental
leaders is less likely to bring on European or US condemnation,
killing of civilians is more likely to cause the conflict to continue.
There was a period earlier this year when Israeli leaders were
targeted, but the recent attacks have shifted back to attacks on
civilians. I suspect this is because the attackers' goal is cause the
conflict to continue, and this is one way to do that.
On a side note: the relevant Palestinians have said repeatedly that
their long term goal is to destroy Israel. I see no reason to
disbelieve them. At this time, since they have not been able to
destroy Israel, their immediate goal must therefore be to prevent a
peace that ends the war. (After all, there are many who want peace.)
So long as the war continues, the relevant Palestinians can hope that
in one, two, or three generations, circumstances will change
sufficiently that they can win. This also is the reason that various
surrounding countries have kept Palestinians in refugee camps, rather
than incorporating the refugees into their own countries, the way the
Israelis did with the equal number of refugees who were thrown out of
Muslim countries. So long as people live as refugees rather than as
assimulated citizens, they will favor war, either for vengence or for
restitution.
Back to the main thread: in a civil war, as in the US between 1861
and 1865, or in a traditional war, such as WWII, a government will
declare a state of rebellion or war, and those actions serve to
categorize people.
But the recent attacks against the US were by people who did not
affiliate themselves with a particular country. Moreover, most of
those involved cannot be readily identified individually. Hence, the
US government could not declare war in the traditional sense.
Instead, US government decided (to quote the 2001 Sep 14 `Use of Force
Resolution'):
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
which means that the President, or someone deputized to act on his
behalf, makes the classification. The classified is based on whether
the entity is thought to have
... planned, authorized, committed, or aided ... or harbored ...
those involved.
Thus, the US said that if a government assists those who attacked the
US, the US will counter attack. It has done this in Afganistan. We
can expect more such actions.
In brief, the `Use of Force Resolution' provides a classification
mechanism that is different from those used by a court. This
classification mechanism enables the US government to categorize
people approximately rather than precisely. It means the government
can act, even in ignorance, and it means more injustice.
Sadly, the `Use of Force Resolution' provides less stringent
guidelines than a traditional delaration of war or rebellion. It
therefore provides for less accountability. Consequently, if the
Founders of the United States were correct in their understanding of
politics, and I think they were, we are more likely to see
governmental tyranny than we would in a traditional war or rebellion.
--
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com
