We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
US ‘war crime’ that wasn’t A ‘legal opinion’ about the incident that made our Jonathan Pearce “mighty queasy”.
The adverts to UCMJ and the U.S. Army Field Manual only prove that hostage taking is illegal under U.S. law, but don’t prove that the action in question here was in fact a hostage taking.
So far I’m not convinced that there was a violation of either international or U.S. law — not in spirit nor letter. The only thing I’m convinced of is that lots of people are wanting to make a big deal out of an incident that doesn’t deserve the attention.
Via Instapundit
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Being legal doesn’t make something right. (Any more than being illegal makes it wrong.)
We really don’t have enough information on the particular case–though I suspect the US forces will receive more indulgence here than would identical actions from, say, the Syrian government.
A threat is a deliberate appeal to fear and an invitation to make a choice. I am unable morally to distinguish between threats that are not in fact carried out because successful and those forestalled in some other way. In threatening to do something–even if the threat is left to the imagination of the person to whom the threat is addressed–you are making an assertion about your willingness to carry it out. Unless you can legitimately take the threatened action (even though you might have reasons for not wanting to execute the threat) then the threat is illegitimate.
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Could we legally take “the threatened action”?
Certainly, we could. If it’s believed that she may help her husband continue resisting, then she may legally be detained/interned for the duration of the conflict, or until her husband makes himself, or is made, hors de combat. We can’t compel the wife to cooperate with the occupation, but that doesn’t mean we can’t take reasonable measures to keep her from contributing to resistance.
I am pleased to note that I didn’t see anything in the article that hadn’t already been aired here on Samizdata by posters.
R.C. Dean: What do you mean? It is precisely because I didn’t see any pertinent arguments by the rest of us that I posted the link… Lots of commenters but no legal take on it by the Samizdata.net ‘posters’…
I feel slightly better after having read the story Gabriel linked to, but even so, I still feel that the US army crossed a line in this case. Yes, I don’t want to go on about it, but it strikes me that even threatening to hold a family in captivity is unacceptable.
I swear, if the AP ran a photo of a GI gnawing on the femer of an Iraqi six year old, Samizdata would run a link to a US Navy case of people resorting to cannibalism to survive in a lifeboat, followed by a triumphant quote of “see, there are cases where eating human flesh isn’t against military regulations, so there’s nothing wrong here, so move along.”
The military can do no wrong here, because that would give ‘ammunition’ to those who opposed the Holy and Sacred War On Iraq. Support the war, support the govt, support the govt’s actions no matter what (except for some ineffectual griping about security cameras).
Gabriel – it seems to me that the article made much the same argument as, ahem, me, although in greater detail:
“Based on the facts in the article, I am far from convinced this was a kidnapping or other unlawful detention of the family. If it was legal to pick them up in the first place and hold them as long as they did, leaving the note does not really matter much or bother me.”
The rest of the comments revolved around whether this was a good idea or not (“I’m with Jonathan. It’s wrong. And counterproductive. As is torture and indefinite detention without charge or trial.”) This is, of course, an issue that is independent of whether the tactic described in the article really was a kidnapping or really was illegal.
By the end of the first Samizdata thread, I thought the posters had pretty well settled that the tactic probably didn’t amount to kidnapping based on the facts in the article, but there was (predictable) disagreement on whether it was a good idea. The article you linked to supports the first conclusion, and is agnostic on the second.
“[A]gnostic on the second”? Oh, I don’t think I’m agnostic on that point — just more concerned with addressing the first point.
I can think of a few reasons for why it’s a bad idea, the most compelling being potential for abuse. The least compelling being the aesthetic “it just looks bad” argument. But, these arguments don’t lead me to concluding that there is or ought be an imperative against ever doing what was done in this instance.
Ah, RC Dean, by posters I mean Samizdata.net contributors. You obviously mean the commenters…
Mr. Adragna’s post is rather Clintonesque–arguing over the definition of “is,” and all that. I have more respect (if no more fondness) for the people who just say, “they’re the enemy and we can do what we want.”
Gabriel – I did indeed mean the commenters. Still getting my lingo straight.
Tony – I noted that your article was agnostic on the advisability of the faux kidnapping tactic, and ventured no opinion on your opinion. Its probably safe to say that every effective tactic in war is both aesthetically offensive and has a potential for abuse. I am relatively unconcerned with faux kidnappings as a tactic. If our boys every start indulging in real kidnappings, then I will be concerned. Until then, though . . . .
A scene from an Army training film from the early 50’s.
American POW:
According to the Geneva Convention I only have to state my name, rank and serial number.
Interrogator with bad German accent:
Vell, ve are not in Geneva now, are we.
Actually, RC, I think I’d be inclined to advise against except in, well, exceptional cases.
I agree with you on the aesthetics — if war is a woman, she’s an ugly bitch…