One could argue that point as well, Ayie.
First off, the Geneva Conventions do explicitly apply to states of armed conflict absent a formal declaration of war. The UN intervention in Korea, for example, had no declaration and was never formally a war, despite the fact that it is generally recognized by the public and by history as having been one.
Additional protocol I, Article 43, paragraph 1:
Al-Qaeda is certainly an authority, and it is certainly not recognized as a legitimate government by the United States, and it is certainly engaged in armed conflict with us. I therefore assert that it constitutes an opposing power under the legal definition of the Conventions, and therefore (as the conventions are a Treaty which the United States has ratified) have the force of law.
Speaking of the Conventions... Article 48:
Do the 9/11 attacks constitute an attack on civilian persons and objects?
Article 49, paragraphs 1 through 3:
Note that paragraph 1 does not specify only such acts committed by uniformed combatants.
Article 51:
Has Al-Awlaki participated in attacks on military or civilian targets? No.
On the other other hand, Al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor does it act in accordance with their tenets. A legitimate argument could be (and has been) made that its associates enjoy no legal protection provided by the Conventions whatsoever.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
First off, the Geneva Conventions do explicitly apply to states of armed conflict absent a formal declaration of war. The UN intervention in Korea, for example, had no declaration and was never formally a war, despite the fact that it is generally recognized by the public and by history as having been one.
Additional protocol I, Article 43, paragraph 1:
Quote:1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Al-Qaeda is certainly an authority, and it is certainly not recognized as a legitimate government by the United States, and it is certainly engaged in armed conflict with us. I therefore assert that it constitutes an opposing power under the legal definition of the Conventions, and therefore (as the conventions are a Treaty which the United States has ratified) have the force of law.
Speaking of the Conventions... Article 48:
Quote:In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
Do the 9/11 attacks constitute an attack on civilian persons and objects?
Article 49, paragraphs 1 through 3:
Quote:Art 49. Definition of attacks and scope of application
1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.
2. The provisions of this Protocol with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted, including the national territory belonging to a Party to the conflict but under the control of an adverse Party.
3. The provisions of this section apply to any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air.
Note that paragraph 1 does not specify only such acts committed by uniformed combatants.
Article 51:
Quote:Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Has Al-Awlaki participated in attacks on military or civilian targets? No.
On the other other hand, Al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor does it act in accordance with their tenets. A legitimate argument could be (and has been) made that its associates enjoy no legal protection provided by the Conventions whatsoever.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.