Wilf,Originally Posted by William F. Owen
The answer is no, both the Contras and the Northern Alliance were acting under the legal authorization and cooperation of the US military and Congress (an act War) against what were/are stated to be enemies of the US. Part 2 of your question is yes, true non-state actors are criminals.
So the Northern Alliance were criminals until the US declared war on the Taliban, at which point they became lawful in the eyes of the US?
When did the US declare War on the Sandinistas? - and when did the Contras become legal and illegal?
Point being, none of this helps characterise the issue in a way that instructs guidance. It's a "so what?" categorisation.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Wilf,
To see just how important the "so what?" factor is read the link below, the Contras became illegal from a US point of view in 1984 with the Boland amendment, after this it nearly cost Reagan his Presidency with the Iran Contra scandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
Well aware. So the "so what" is that giving "legal" status creates the condition where your own branches and representatives in government can effectively work against each other. - thus an example of how not to do it!
So assigning legal status is not actually good a policy as it makes the implementation of strategy far more difficult. Assuming most folks know this, how much further along are we?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
It depends. In a democracy the assumption is that once the vote of yea or nay happens everyone will support the side that wins. The way it actually works, as you point out, is one side will try to exploit political advantage with the intent to create a policy failure which will allow a political advantage during the next election for their own party. So the nation suffers as a whole.
Which leads me to point two, if the violent act is committed by a non state actor(s) it may be best to treat it as a Law Enforcement problem as opposed to a lets invade every country and turn them into a democracy problem.
It's not April, 1st yet!
Seriously, you cannot believe this *certainly not allowed language*.
To quote Schmedlap:
THAT GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT except if it's happening on U.S. territory.
It's far beyond my limits of understanding how certain Americans think. Seriously, far beyond. It's like how Monty Python invented its sketches - I cannot imagine and I know nobody personally who can imagine how that works. It's too absurd.
I mean; think of it: Would you consider AQ a legal force if it gets endorsed by PR China? That idea is so absurd - it exceeds my English vocabulary.
All insurgent movements are, I believe, by definition "illegal."
To add confusion to that, the U.S. officially recognizes the "unalianable" right and duty of a populace to rise up in insurgency when it believes its government has become "despotic."
Complicate it one step further, when the US comes to town it does so with a broad proclamation that it is "bringing the rule of law" (of note, all Americans, King George was similarly bringing the rule of law when he sent his Army and Navy to Boston to quell the illegal insurrection there a few years back...).
Law is a tricky thing. Emposing your laws on others trickier still. Might does make right, but it doesn't make many friends.
We live in interesting times.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Not sure if that is directed to me or Slap. If AQ were operating within Chinese territory, then yes.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks