The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label

[Fuchs]

Maybe you should try to read more sensibly. You might spot relevant words such as "continental" in critical places, or even read till the last line and learn about the key meaning of a forum post.


Btw, by the time of the Holocaust, the average German worker was either in military service or working 60+ hours/week. How much time is left for caring about politics and incredible rumours after working 60 hrs/week (breaks not counted) and having a wife, several children plus getting awake at night quite often because of air raid alarms?

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

First, I missed that key word. Well the US had essentially 102 years in a row of “continental” peace after 1899, until that day in September 10 years ago reset the clock. So there.

Second, your last line subtly implies that the US is repeating the Holocaust, or something similar. I don’t think we need to learn many lessons from the German experience, since most humans, and the majority of Americans, respect the sanctity of human life. What we do understand though, is that one doesn’t erect an entire infrastructure dedicated to the elimination of human life. Well, that is erecting it between working 60 hour weeks, having a wife, several children, plus getting awoken at night quite often because of air raids? Or did all those camps just show up one day? That's right it was all the SS's fault.

I like the “incredible rumours” part. Are you a Holocaust denier, Fuchs? Sorry, but your excuses are pretty thin to cover for “average” Germans exhibiting a huge amount of moral cowardice.

[Fuchs]

The difference between you and me is that I attempted to look at it from the perspective of the supposedly martial-spirited people. You didn't look at it from that perspective and thus you don't get the "incredible" thing.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

the most martial-spirited Americans sit at nice mahogany desks in a big marble building on a hill near the Potomac and have no problem throwing around their martial-spirit, as long as they or theirs do not have to do the fighting and dying.

But it occurs to me that there is a lesson to be learned from Germany. Hitler was too overconfident in 1939 when he decided to invade Poland. The Großer Generalstab did not feel the Wehrmacht was sufficiently prepared equipment wise for a potential protracted war. The lessons of the Polenfeldzug certainly helped make Fall Gelb the stunning victory it was, but Hitler then stretched the military even further by invading Crete (Merkur certainly was a Pyrrhic victory) and then getting involved in North Africa (Italy certainly was the “weak sister” of the alliance). Invading Russia, while initially successful, was the final straw and Germany was thus engaged on too many fronts without the resources (guns, tanks, and planes you can build but people are much harder replace). The early victories led to even greater commitments which lead eventually to over commitment. The Japanese had a term for it: senshoubyou (victory disease).

In similar fashion, I think the US is dangerously spread thin across a wide spectrum of commitments, both military and economic, and we are beginning to have a difficult time resourcing those activities. We must be careful that our own hubris does not give us a terminal case of senshoubyou.

[jmm99]

Here is "Terrorism Defined" by six Appellate Military Judges, United States v Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul (USCMCR, 9 Sep 2011), pp.52-53:

b. Terrorism - defined

The offense of “terrorism” warrants particularized discussion as it is invoked in each charged offense. The 2006 M.C.A. § 950v(b)(24) prohibits AUECs from committing terrorism stating:

TERRORISM.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more protected persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

This definition of “terrorism,” is incorporated into “providing material support for terrorism,” see n. 68 (quoting 2006 M.C.A. 950v(b)(25)(A)), and may be appropriately characterized as the underlying offense. In addition, the specifications of the conspiracy and solicitation charges cite “terrorism” as an object offense. Accordingly, we will discuss “terrorism” as that offense is defined in the 2006 M.C.A. and international law.

The 2006 M.C.A. definition is more comprehensive than Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, API, and APII. All prohibit the “intentional targeting and killing of protected persons” and “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.” See supra n. 39. In addition, the 2006 M.C.A. requires the Government prove that “[t]he accused did so in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” 2007 M.M.C. Part IV, ¶ 6(24)b(2). The 2006 M.C.A.’s inclusion of an additional element actually narrows the conduct subject to individual criminal liability, and places an additional burden of proof on the Government.

The 2006 M.C.A. definition is also consistent with the most comprehensive definition of “terrorism” by international treaty extant on September 11, 2001. Specifically, the 1999 Financing Terrorism Convention included in its prohibition of conduct meeting the definition of terrorism:

Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: (a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex;[71] or (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

Article 2.1, International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Dec. 9, 1999) (1999 Financing Terrorism Convention), 2178 U.N.T.S. 197, 39 I.L.M. 270, G.A. Res. 54/109 (emphasis added).

The similarity in these definitions does not suggest that a universally accepted definition of terrorism existed at the time of appellant’s charged conduct, or that such a definition currently exists in international law. A more accurate description of the treaty law addressing international terrorism would be ad hoc. Long-standing efforts to define “terrorism” have been the subject of persistent political dispute, primarily associated with national liberation movements, concerns inapplicable to al Qaeda’s attacks on the United States. See Alex Schmid, Terrorism on Trial: Terrorism—The Definitional Problem, 36 Case W. Res. J. Intl. L. 375 (2004).

At least 12 antiterrorism treaties or conventions predate appellant’s offenses.[72] .... [JMM: the opinion then goes on to discuss these treaties in depth]

71. The annex lists the nine treaties infra at n. 72, except Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (Mar. 1, 1991), 30 I.L.M. 726; Tokyo Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, Sept. 14, 1963, 20 U.S.T. 2941, 704 U.N.T.S. 219.

72. Those 12 antiterrorism treaties include: (1) International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Dec. 9, 1999) (1999 Financing Terrorism Convention), 2178 U.N.T.S. 197, 39 I.L.M. 270, G.A. Res. 54/109; (2) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (Dec. 15, 1997) (1997 Bombing Convention), 37 I.L.M. 249; (3) Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (Mar. 1, 1991), 30 I.L.M. 726; (4) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (Mar. 10, 1988), 27 I.L.M. 684, 1678 U.N.T.S. 304; (5) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Mar. 10, 1988), 27 I.L.M. 668, 1678 U.N.T.S. 221; (6) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (Feb. 24, 1988), 27 I.L.M. 627, 1589 U.N.T.S. 474; (7) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Oct. 26, 1979), 18 I.L.M. 1419, 1456 U.N.T.S. 1987; (8) International Convention Against the taking of Hostages (Dec. 17, 1979), G.A. Res. 34/146, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, 1316 U.N.T.S. 205; (9) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (Dec. 14, 1973), 28 U.S.T. 1975, 1035 U.N.T.S. 167; (10) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Sept. 23, 1971), 24 U.S.T. 565, 974 U.N.T.S. 177; (11) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Dec. 16, 1970), 22 U.S.T. 1641, 860 U.N.T.S. 105; (12) Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Sept. 14, 1963), 20 U.S.T. 2941, 704 U.N.T.S. 219. See Hamdan, 2011 WL 2923945 at *20 n. 59 (listing dates entered into force for the UN, ratified or accessed by the U.S., entered into force for the U.S., and number of signatories and parties). See also Karin G. Tackaberry, Time to Stand Up and Be Counted: The Need for the United Nations to Control International Terrorism, The Army Lawyer (July 2007) 1, 7-14 (discussing the relevance and limitations of additional terrorism-related treaties, conventions and agreements).

Please note that this opinion is concerned with whether acts during an armed conflict come under the war crimes prohibitions where "terrorism" is an element to the war crimes. The opinion is not authority one way or the other as to whether the armed conflict should or should not be called the "War on Terror".

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

What I find interesting in the definition of terrorism is that the term is used almost exclusively to describe non-state actors using violence against states. When a state uses violence in a manner calculated to influence or affect the civilian population by intimidation or coercion, is that not terrorism as well... whether the population in question is its own or that of another nation?

[motorfirebox]

What I find interesting in the definition of terrorism is that the term is used almost exclusively to describe non-state actors using violence against states. When a state uses violence in a manner calculated to influence or affect the civilian population by intimidation or coercion, is that not terrorism as well... whether the population in question is its own or that of another nation?

Well... that's not entirely accurate, in that we're not entirely that honest in our definitions. Lockerbie, for instance, is considered terrorism. Not to be trite, but it's mainly considered terrorism when they do it. Whoever "they" happens to be at the time.