Henry-Finland

I am not talking about groups that has killed hostages or such.
I agree that if a group does that, they are terrorists.

But if not true, they are not.

Now comes my question:
If there really would be (or is) an Iraqi armed resistance group that respects international law:
- Could it target US-soldiers etc. in Iraq?
- Could it target US-soldiers etc. in USA, or any country where there are US-military?

If not, why not?

Let us presume that my country has a goverment that has been elected somehow. It attacks, e.g. a smaller country, kills about 100.000 civilians, do not respect international law, tells after killing these people, "that the task is accomplished".
Did this country have any right to attack my country?
Has the "small country" any right to defend themselves after that we have declared that the "task is accomplished"?
If they do, can they still attack my country?


If they do not have those rights, can we then begin looting the national resources of that country, and they still would not have any rights to resist?

Henry

Ruy Lopez

You seem to be after legality. Can't help much there but some political science and lawyers could.

My point of view would only be about--would it feel right? Yes of course. Hit the invader anywhere by any means and at any time.

Henry-Finland

I also think like this.
The problem is, that the military is often hard to hit in such situations.
I see also collaborators as quislings, but I am against "soft targets".
But how to define "soft targets", that I do not know.

Henry

ohwilleke

Call me a realist. Resisting an occupying army will be considered by that army grounds to kill you or otherwise harm you. If you win and your not dead, then it was legal. International law is largely a myth. Everyone claims it exists, just like Santa Claus, but everyone knows that it doesn't.

collounsbury

International law is not a "myth" - it is simply not "law" in the sense of national domestic law - unfortunately the use of the word "law" leads the innocent to expect the same functions as in national domestic courts.

International law, however, is a body of largely understood, and in key portions systematized law - meaning agreed upon rules which most actors consider binding on "good actors." Enforcement of course only exists in the case of treaty agreements between sovereigns; and sovereigns can always back out.

However, this is the exceptional case; in general international law in areas like maretime law, etc. are observed out of self interest.

nermal

It's illegal if the occupying army ultimately prevails. If they are driven out, however, you would be lauded as one of your country's finest citizens.

Remember, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were traitors until America won the revolution, and no attempt was made to bring Ho Chi Min to "justice" after the West pulled out of Vietnam.

Ed

Ruy Lopez

I seem to remember James Rubin, Koffi Annan and the last UN arms inspector all opining that international law is determined by the world's power structure. It is a correct observation.

collounsbury

I think "determined" is too strong, strongly shaped by, but not determined per se.

excreationist

Maybe it depends whether the government of the small country still exists. In the case of Iraq, Saddam's government was destroyed and then a new Iraqi government was set up. If people attack Americans it could be said that they aren't acting lawfully according to the Iraqi government.... but on the other hand maybe the Iraqi government is illegitimate. The US wants the Iraqi government to be democratic though, and a democratic government would represent the citizens more fairly than one caused by a violent revolution (when a democratic government isn't the goal).

ohwilleke:
I think the US government just claims it exists if it suits them. e.g. if Saddam was breaking international laws they'd say so. But if it gets in the way of what they want to do - e.g. if the international court wants Americans to be tried there too - they just ignore it. (correct me if I'm wrong)

comradeBillyboy

well, henry, just because we invaded their country and killed lots of civilians and destroyed lots of property is absolutly no justification for iraqi resistance to the united states. we are america and what we do must be right cuz george bush said so. and george bush is on a mission from god, and has said so. there is no possible justification for any opposition to W's holy crusade to loot iraq and control its oil.