Is it illegal to resist the occupying army?

[Henry-Finland]

Hi!

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

Now comes my questions:
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".

1) Did this country have any right to attack my country?
2) Has the "small country" any right to defend themselves after that we have declared that the "task is accomplished"?
3) If they do, can they still attack my country?


4) If they do not have those rights, can we then begin looting the national resources of that country, "on the behalf of the people"
5) and they still would not have any rights to resist?

Henry

[Osborn F Enready]

Henry I see your point, and I agree.

I think whether or not they say the task is accomplished, all citizens have a right to rebel a force of subversives overtaking their nation, if they feel it is in their best intrest, whether or not those subversives are a globally backed force.

I want all Americans and allies to come home from this war, at least the ones that are still alive. The point you make is valid though, and it is a joke if those who don't see it think that Americans would respond any other way were they in this scenario as the people being overtaken in THEIR country.

[Nono]

Article 51 of the UN Charter guarantees a "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The last bit is the thorny part, if you're thinking of Iraq. But the right to self-defence -- whatever that means -- is guaranteed under international law.

[RickSp]

Irregular forces have every right under international law to attempt to repell a foriegn aggressor. Did the Kuwaitis have a right to fight against the Iraqi invaders?

Insurgents do not have a right to kill civilians under international law. Of course neither do invading armies. (If you believe the Iraqi Health Ministry, the Americans kill two civilians for every one killed by the insurgents.)

[rmnunez]

"Irregular" forces come in different models, if they lack uniforms, fail to bear arms openly and lack hierarchical structure with a chain of command they cannot lawfully operate under the governing Conventions.

[Henry-Finland]

Quote by: rmnunez "Irregular" forces come in different models, if they lack uniforms, fail to bear arms openly and lack hierarchical structure with a chain of command they cannot lawfully operate under the governing Conventions.

Could You tell me; which Conventions. I simply do not know.
I ask because the resistance in WWII was, as I see it, illigal.

In the Winter War, when Stalin attacked Finland in 1939, there was simply not enough uniforms either.
The Finns solved it by using a cocard and whatever other "military"-codes was available.

Anyhow, I think that if my country is attacked, occupied, I have the moral right to build bombs in (at?) my attic. If I then attack the enemy without uniform, as I obviously do, I think the "laws of war", if I get captured, are different as if I would have been a soldier with an uniform.
But if I accept it, what's the problem?

Anyhow, I have great respect for international law, because that is, beside arms, the only thing that the small countries have, but if my country is attacked...
Well, I think my "consiousness about international law", is very flexible.
If I put it mildly.

Henry

Henry

[rmnunez]

The 4th Geneva Convention included an additional protocol extending coverage to "irregulars". This was done adducing their poverty, lack of uniforms and participation in struggles for self-determination in Africa. The US (and many other governments) never ratified these provisions, it was argued that by extending coverage to people indistinguishable from civilians it made protecting them (one of the Conventions' purposes) more difficult.

I do agree the idea of joining the 'resistance' if your country gets invaded sounds splendid and patriotic, quite natural, but what indicia do we have this is the nature of the insurgency in Iraq? I've heard there are some foreigners involved (Iraq has been described as a "magnet" for terrorists) and these couldn't be patriotically motivated as they are not Iraqis and have not been occupied. Sunni insurgents are attacking their Shia countrymen and this wouldn't fit the patriotic resistance notion either. The US labeling them Baathist remnants or Saddamite die-hards might not be accurate in all cases, but we can establish they are ex-military and Saddam's army was quite Baathist.

I think the legitimacy of the Iraqi insurgency is dubious when it includes many foreigners, is lead by non-Iraqis and particularly if their aim is anything other than expelling the occupiers. Zarkawi (the Jordanian) is on the record his aim is to establish a "New Afghanistan", the insurgents blasting away at Shia shrine seek to derail the elections.

[PatrickHenry]

Legal or illegal, if a person resists foreign invaders in their nation, who could say, "That's wrong!"

And if a citizen targets the invaders' nation in retribution, that makes sense too. That is why wars should not begin based on false intel. The siezure of Iraq has created a situation where the US homeland could conceivably be a target for the resistance fighters. Consider the situation in WW2. Could anyone fault say a Russian or Polish plot on the Nazi High Command in Berlin after their nations had been invaded?

Not the same? Why not?

[Nono]

Quote by: rmunez Iraq has been described as a "magnet" for terrorists.

As it was pointed out that it would certainly become, in response to the pre-invasion pro-invasion argument that overthrowing Saddam and occupying the country would "counter terrorism".

[rmnunez]

The Iraqi terrorist tie thing is problematic. On the one hand its undeniable Saddam did have some terrorist ties (besides funding suicide bombers in Palestine) but its true the intervention has made the terrorist problem in Iraq much worse than it was under Saddam. But one has to be careful in pushing the argument too far as it suggests opposition on the ground is not and insurgency. Likely its a bit of lots of things.

Clearly the place is attractive to fanatics who want their 72 virgins and this explains the foreign terrorists, but the Coalitioneer's 'magnetic' effect might be a blessing in disguise, who is to say what these fanatics would be doing for those virgins if the gringo troops were safely at home, my guess is aiming for another urban center full of civilians. I regret their casualties, but figure the military are better equipped and can defend themselves better than office workers in financial centres. Additionally, the terrorists are clearly losing as each blast is certain to carry one of theirs off to promised blessings but not as often are successful in taking any of their enemy with them. Somewhere I saw OBL describing the situation as a "war of atrition" which would suggest he has a terribly long row to hoe at the rate he is going.

[bishop]

The 4th Geneva Convention included an additional protocol extending coverage to "irregulars".

the problem with that argument is that the invasion of iraq was not legally authorized. you're essentially trying to apply one international law, while discounting the validity of another. that logic is swiss cheese.

the invading country broke international law by invading without the explicit consent of the security council. the fact that the insurgents aren't wearing uniforms does not negate the fact that they are citizens of iraq, a sovereign state unlawfully invaded by a foreign "coalition". foreign insurgents are where your statement about the geneva convention (regarding uniforms or something to designate their affiliation) applies. for iraqi citizens, the fact that they are the legal and rightful owners of iraq makes their insurgency legitimate and legal.

we have had to seek additional security council resolutions to give us legitimacy via the u.n. for our occupation. it should be noted, however, that the measure wasn't voted on by the iraqi people. and the invasion was illegal to begin with. so, i don't see how they could be legally required to accept the occupation's "authority" since it is not legitimate.

[Sonart]

U.S. Now Finds That Insurgents Are Mostly Iraqis

--"The battle for the city of Fallujah is giving U.S. military commanders an increasingly clear picture of this country's insurgency, and it is the portrait of a home-grown uprising overwhelmingly dominated by Iraqis, not by foreign fighters."--


.

[rmnunez]

Bishop, although intervention under some Security Council fiat is legitimate, it doesn't follow that therefore intervention without Council endorsement is illegitimate. We know the Bush administration floated the theory it was pre-emptive, anticipatory or preventive self-defence (there is a whole legal theory on this that can be dissected, its not dismissable merely as another Bushian hallucination). Unless we assume its true Bush concocted evidence knowing there was nothing, it makes sense to consider what it was believed Saddam was up to at the time. If one believed he was on the verge of acquiring nukes and had a huge arsenal of proscribed WMDs, you can see how he would have been seen as a threat, even to distant US.

[bishop]

it doesn't follow that therefore intervention without Council endorsement is illegitimate.

correct, you can invade if you're either attacked or if you face the threat of imminent attack.. it's spelled out clearly in the u.n. charter. neither of those conditions were met. the claims about wmd's being a justifiable reason for invading are severely muted by the fact that we had inspectors on the ground who didn't find anything to validate our bogus claims. yes, the notion that saddam had wmd's was definitely plausible - that's why the security council sent inspectors back into iraq. what happened after that was all our doing, and it was entirely illegal.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: rmnunez I do agree the idea of joining the 'resistance' if your country gets invaded sounds splendid and patriotic, quite natural, but what indicia do we have this is the nature of the insurgency in Iraq? I've heard there are some foreigners involved (Iraq has been described as a "magnet" for terrorists) and these couldn't be patriotically motivated as they are not Iraqis and have not been occupied. Sunni insurgents are attacking their Shia countrymen and this wouldn't fit the patriotic resistance notion either. The US labeling them Baathist remnants or Saddamite die-hards might not be accurate in all cases, but we can establish they are ex-military and Saddam's army was quite Baathist.

There is a problem with deeming none-Iraqi's terrorists on the grounds of nationality. The states in the middle east are not built on nations, just political lines. Moreover, those lines are quite recent inventions. Most people in the middle east do not see themselves as Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian etc They see themselves as Arabs, or Sunni/Shia, or as an entire region under the thumb of foreigners. To denounce a Syrian fighting in Iraq as somehow monstrous while the Iraqi insurgent as a noble resister would be like calling a Californian a terrorist if he defended New York from invasion, or a Scot for defending England. Remember the Afgan/Russian war? Afghanistan was full of outsiders defending Afghanistan from Russia, and they were no less legitimate for fighting them as any none-Iraqi is for joining the resistance.

Also, many joined the Iraqi army for regular pay to support a family rather than to support Saddam. The Special Republican Guard perhaps, and the higher officers surely were, but the regular lower ranks were often just men wanting a secure income.

[rmnunez]

Bishop, whether the Charter would justify intervention depends on the nature of the threat. Imminence is a factor you pick up on and seem to find lacking, but if the threat is partly based on WMDs, its magnitude is enhanced and the need for imminence diminished. Additionally one should note the Charter also allows use of force upon threats to international peace and security, which could include a lot more. I've found serious disertations discussing whether there could be even an obligation to intervene militarily under the Charter in cases of genocide, even if its exclusively within the target's borders.

Adams, the idea of some sort of transnational panarabic identity is not novel, but it seems stretching it a bit when it is brandished to include foreign terrorists under the rubric of some sort of movement for self-government. One starts out under the premise struggles for self-determination are legitimate and reconizable, but there is a need to establish some nexus between the struggling and the land they are fighting for. If it is held Arabs or Muslims form some sort of transnational community where identity with the territory they are fighting for is unimportant, then we've got to realize the argument its a struggle for self-government weakens.

[bishop]

nevertheless, the security council took action and imposed extremely intrusive inspections. plus, we had the entire country completely surrounded. we invaded not out of concern that we really did face the threat of imminent attack (they had no means to attack us btw) - but because bush grew impatient that the inability to find wmd would slowly quash his plans for invasion. it's silly to think that he and his administration didn't want to invade iraq. the writing's alllll over the walls.

since we had inspectors and no shred of evidence even hinting that iraq could attack us, the notion that we had legal authority to defend ourselves by invading is laughable. defend ourselves against what?!?


good that you mentioned pan-arabism, because that's a very powerful "ideology", but legally speaking - foreign fighters are technically illegal. iraqi nationlist, on the other hand, are entirely justified in mounting an insurgency. i wonder, for example, if your country was illegally invaded for its oil by china - would you as a mexican feel that you're justified in participating in an insurgency for your freedom?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bishop i wonder, for example, if your country was illegally invaded for its oil by china - would you as a mexican feel that you're justified in participating in an insurgency for your freedom?

Only if he were allowed to wear a uniform, submit to a structured chain of command, and openly walk around with a weapon. To do otherwise, and make any kind of armed resistance, would mean that he is nothing more than a terrorist.

[PatrickHenry]

To rmnunez

Quote by: bishop i wonder, for example, if your country was illegally invaded for its oil by china - would you as a mexican feel that you're justified in participating in an insurgency for your freedom?

bishop, my sense is that nunez is an American living in Mexico, and not a Mexican National, from some of his phraseology and syntax...

[rmnunez]

I wonder why, given that the writing was "allll over the walls" indicating Bush intended to intervene come hell or high water, how come Saddam didn't see this too? Arguably the US was barely held back with difficulty for the last few weeks while Blix's boys puttered around. With the Bushian intent so clearly in evidence it stands to reason a more sensible Saddam would have been a bit more forthcoming. If there was nothing he should have said so and offered some evidence. He stalled, negotiated on characterizations and dickered with the inspectors until the very end, then it was too late.

since we had inspectors and no shred of evidence even hinting that iraq could attack us, the notion that we had legal authority to defend ourselves by invading is laughable. defend ourselves against what?!?

The evidence lacking was that Saddam had WMDs, not that he could attack. The evidence he had no WMDs was not available when the decision to intervene was reached. If it was then believed Saddam could have WMDs the way he could attack would have included a WMD scenario. If such a scenario is considered the magnitude of the threat gets enhanced and its imminence is less important (sort of like the argument Israel maintained to justify knocking out the Osirak reactor).

I've seen it argued how since Saddam didn't have weapons which could reach US territory his threat was insignificant, but I wouldn't find it inconceivable someone believed to seek unconventional weapons could resort to an unconventional delivery as well.