Just wondering (Terrorism).

[Mey]

Are people captured/arrested for Terrorism - Terrorists or Prisoners of War?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Terrorists, which, funnily enough, goes against the whole war on terror blindfold

 

[Lamp]

Are we supposed to guess the question ? Sorry, my psychic skills are a little under par this afternoon...LOL...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Are we supposed to guess the question ? Sorry, my psychic skills are a little under par this afternoon...LOL...

And your "read the first post" skills are even a bit more under it

 

[Chronictank]

In Iraq and Afghanistan during the occupation it would be a POW, which is why there was a whole hoo ha about Sadaams minions and those captured in Afghanistan being held and trialed by the yanks

Out of war they are terrorists, and dealt with as such

 

[Mey]

But if the people who are doing the "terrorist" attacks have declared war on the country they are attacking surely then it an act of war not terror?

Only reason I'm asking really is because of the Levels of treatment you recieve as a POW i believe are better than that of a Terrorist.

 

[Lamp]

And your "read the first post" skills are even a bit more under it

ROFL yeah just seen it LOL....blonde moment...

 

[UrganNagru]

But if the people who are doing the "terrorist" attacks have declared war on the country they are attacking surely then it an act of war not terror?

Only reason I'm asking really is because of the Levels of treatment you recieve as a POW i believe are better than that of a Terrorist.

Aye but to qualify as a a soldier rather than a terrorist/spy, you need to be in uniform for one thing. So those who've been plottting over heere should be tried as terrorists, the "insurgents" abroad or a bit more tricky as the media tells us that many of them use the civilian population as a sheild (eg. car bombers) in which case being treated as a terrorist is fair enough. The others I ain't got a clue as I don't know if they wear owt to distinguish them selves from the rest of the population, but in my opinion if they've got the balls for a firefight with out hiding among innocents it's fair to treat them as soldiers.

 

[Chronictank]

But if the people who are doing the "terrorist" attacks have declared war on the country they are attacking surely then it an act of war not terror?

Only reason I'm asking really is because of the Levels of treatment you recieve as a POW i believe are better than that of a Terrorist.

You cant just declare war on someone, the actual order of the state of war can only be given by he sovereign nation(s).
In other words a country is not at war until it's leader decides it is, in which case certain civil liberties may be infringed provided they are in accordance to international law

Legally all those people doing terrorist attacks are not at war, this is why this palestinian-Israeli thing is such a mess, every action into Palestinian terriory is illegal, regardless who they regard their enemy because it is not the state of palestine
Equally every rocket attack into Israel is illegal, in exactly the same way
Both in this instance are terrorists

but in my opinion if they've got the balls for a firefight with out hiding among innocents it's fair to treat them as soldiers.

They are not soldiers, because they are not backed by any government/nation.
They are essentially the equivalent of a civilian shooting at the police

 

[Dukat]

what chronic said - also, from Article 4 of the 3rd geneva convetion:

From the Red Cross, not wikipedia, before anyone starts

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country,

(International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention)


What this basicly means is that anyone who pretends to be a civi one moment, then pulls a gun and starts shooting, or denates a bomb, etc, is not subject to the above, because they're being sneaky buggers

It is for this reason that SOE operatives in WW2 who were caught whilst wearing german uniforms, or civi clothes, were almost always executed - because they werent following the "rules of war", so they werent protected by them.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hmm. I wonder if someone from finland bombed england, would it be an act of war or terror, seeing as finland is still at war with england

 

[Chronictank]

Hmm. I wonder if someone from finland bombed england, would it be an act of war or terror, seeing as finland is still at war with england

technically speaking, if you were in a government backed organisation (see seel army) it wouldn't be terrorism
You would jsut be hung when you get home lol

 

[old.Tohtori]

technically speaking, if you were in a government backed organisation (see seel army) it wouldn't be terrorism
You would jsut be hung when you get home lol

Ah but every young man around 17-18 goes through the military training, and as such they are in the reserves when wartime comes. Should count?

Unless there's some medical issue.

And many kids stay there too, so those count ofcourse.

I guess, a cushy sitting job at a military office, then go for a vacation in london, which turns into a "you know the genre" style massacre on the streets of london and...well...going home would be rather difficult as the UK probably have a nuke.

 

[Hawkwind]

Gray area, how do you define a war?

Take the various Muslim fanatics. They have repeatidly declared 'holy war' on the US and it's allies. To them it is a war. To us in the west it's merely a security issue. Who are the foolish ones?

 

[Dukat]

The thing is, it doesnt matter if finland is at war with the UK - it wouldnt matter if the war turned 'hot' and we were actually seeing armed combat in the north sea etc - If someone pledging allegiance to finland (be it a member of the finnishlandian army or not) came to the UK without following the rules of the geneva convention, eg:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;

Then they'd be treated as a criminal/terrorist. simple as. In exactly the same way as members of the SAS/SIS would probably be treated the same if they ended up caught whilst on sneaky ops in finland.

Like I said, what the geneva convetion does is protects legal combatants and people who are 'playing fair' in a warzone. Those people who bring out the dirty tricks arent protected by the laws.

As I understand it, it doesnt actually matter if the countries in question are "at war" or not, if britain attacked some country we're not at war with in an open attack (eg. no sneaky stuff), and some of our troops got caught, they would(should) be treated as POWs because they'd still be "legal combatants".

From what I can see, its just common sense - soldiers are legal combatants, terrorists aren't.

 

[Mey]

Well, if a person is following what they believe to be an legitimate authority figure and believe themselves to be at "war" with the west, (however unconventional it might be) are in sense, soldiers.

Ah nevermind, just re-read the act, they basic fall fowl of the laws of "war" so are therefore not covered by it.

Ahwell was an interesting thought anyway

 

[Chronictank]

Well, if a person is following what they believe to be an legitimate authority figure and believe themselves to be at "war" with the west, (however unconventional it might be) are in sense, soldiers.

Ah nevermind, just re-read the act, they basic fall fowl of the laws of "war" so are therefore not covered by it.

Ahwell was an interesting thought anyway

no, not at all
It is nothing to do with them, its the leader of the sovereign state who delcares a state of war, no foreign power can do that
They can declare war to their hearts conent, but end of the day until the state the war is being carried out in declares it they are criminals and thus as Dukat says are not bound by the geneva convention.
Going back to the Israel example, a combatant caught in Israel in my limited understanding is protected by the Geneva convention.
However the same does not exist for a Israeli soldier captured in Palestine because they are criminals and possibly terrorists depending on the context in which they were caught

I think terorist is being thrown around as a buzz word (including by myself and i apologise for that),
they are not terrorists if they are firing at the police they are simply criminals
They become terrorists when they start firing at non-combatants through accident or otherwise

 

[Dukat]

I think terorist is being thrown around as a buzz word (including by myself and i apologise for that),
they are not terrorists if they are firing at the police they are simply criminals
They become terrorists when they start firing at non-combatants through accident or otherwise

yea, its hard to define "terrorist" when you think about it - common sense works but if you want an exact definition it becomes a little difficult.

I would say that terrorists need to be Religiously/Politicly/Idealogicly/etc motivated as well - the guy who did the dunblain (sp?) killings wasnt so much of a terrorist as a killer. I think I know what you mean about the distinction though

I think that the muslim side of things is a bad example - they're obviously terrorists because of thier actions, motivations, methods and beliefs.

The Tamil Tigers, I think, would be a far more complex example, although I admit I probably dont know enough to be sure on this - from what I've heard about them they're fighting for indepenence on thier island against a government, but they're fighting openly and (mostly) seem to be abiding by the laws and customs of war. As I say though I havent heard alot, its mostly rumours etc, so I could well be wrong about this though - just recently people in the UK got arrested in connection with them under terrorism laws

 

[Chronictank]

The Tamil Tigers, I think, would be a far more complex example, although I admit I probably dont know enough to be sure on this - from what I've heard about them they're fighting for indepenence on thier island against a government, but they're fighting openly and (mostly) seem to be abiding by the laws and customs of war. As I say though I havent heard alot, its mostly rumours etc, so I could well be wrong about this though -

I believe, dont quote me i may be wrong, that the government is at war against them and are using the military to fight them as well as things like being held without trial as POW's rather than a civil dispute meaning the police deal with it

just recently people in the UK got arrested in connection with them under terrorism laws

I wouldnt base anything on the UK terrorism laws, they are a very bad joke and so ambiguous that they can be used for anything at the moment
I honestly can't believe they were passed in the first place as they are in direct conflict with a hell of alot of basic rights as a british citizen
But then thats a different discussion

I think that the muslim side of things is a bad example - they're obviously terrorists because of thier actions, motivations, methods and beliefs.

Methods and motivation (i.e. wanting to kill x group) yes, targetting civilians makes them a terrorist
beliefs , they have no bearing in them being classified as a terrorist imo as you can believe something but until you start blowing people up (as an example), you aren't a terrorst just a person with an extreme view, see BNP

 

[Dukat]

Methods and motivation (i.e. wanting to kill x group) yes, targetting civilians makes them a terrorist
beliefs , they have no bearing in them being classified as a terrorist imo as you can believe something but until you start blowing people up (as an example), you aren't a terrorst just a person with an extreme view, see BNP

Hehe, I thought a bit about this when I listed those things wasnt sure whether to include beliefs.

I see what you mean here - I do agree that beliefs alone don't make a person a terrorist, actions are the sole determining factor on that score, however I do think that beliefs play a part in the makeup of a 'potential terrorist' - if you look at terrorists, they almost always believe that what they're doing is necessary; they believe in thier cause enough to kill women & children, and possibly in some cases believe that they're doing a morally good thing when they do it.

Dont get me wrong here, I dont think that islam itself is responsible for terrorism, but I do think that it plays its part, in exactly the same way as other religions have played thier part in other actions, whether its because of warped interpretations of the religion or not, i still think that belief is an important part of the makeup of some terrorists.

You're right though, beliefs probably shouldnt be included in the list of things that make a person a terrorist