911/ - A Criminal Act or an Act of War?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not relevant? To what, the purposes of this discussion or reality? The realities on the ground in Afghanistan look like war and in Iraq the realities on the ground look like something close to war, but a police action can look like war too.

You asked

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

The answer is "yes." An act of war does not preclude all entities other than states. War is often waged by mercenary or proxy armies not affiliated with states. If you assume that only states can act in a state of war, then there is no such thing as a civil war because usually in a civil war, at least one side does not have the powers of the apparatus of the state. The recent wars in sub-Saharan Africa for example, which have claimed millions of lives, are almost never formal wars between states, even though the staging and battlegrounds are often trans-national.

I did ask.

I also fully understand that we can be engaged in hostilities that look, taste and feel very much like war without having war been declared. In order for Congress to fund a war must not a war be declared? What else justifies the immense monetary effort in such a situation? where are the controls...the checks and balances over whether we get to enter into war?

War is a legal term as well as anything else, we justify it in the legal sphere.
How does the United States declare war on a non state entity? If only Congress has the powers to declare war what is the mechanism to declare war on terrorism?

Did we actually declare war on Afghanistan and then Iraq?

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, to deal militarily with the 20th century threats which if I remember included terrorism at that time.
War Powers Resolution of 1973

please do not misinterpret what I am saying.

As far as the US Civil War goes, the Confederacy set up a legal mechanism that dealt with war legally. And there is a distinction with a difference when we call what transpired, a civil war.

The sub-Saharan situation is often one of massacres and incestual fighting.

Whether the waring factions actually declare war on one another or one side (the government) does is unknown by me. I'd have to research that one.

You do agree there can be battles, as in border skirmishes---transnational and nationally, that are horrendous in their effects, yet remain outside of the scope of what we would call a declared war or even war itself?

 

[Lycurgus]

DevNell Wrote:

Do you think the terrorism we know today could fizzle out...age, max out?

Is it possible to comprehend that the choices we make in dealing with the fight can be immediately successful, yet have dire consequences down the line...think Afghanistan/Mujahideen. It's not all black and white for me. I think since terrorist organizations since the late sixties started thinking globally teh fight against them will be global in nature, but a war in reality and not just in an abstract concept?

Good comments, questions and points.

It has to be a global effort I truly believe that and it has to be on all levels.

Will it fizzle out? Interesting question. It could if host nations make not worth setting up there. In other words, if all they receive are negative responses and reactions it could. But so long has they have places where they can crate some kind of infrastructure and organization, then no, I think there is enough hate and evil to keep it alive to some level of serious threat to many in the world.

It's like the change almost has to come from the regular guy on the street in many of these nations simply saying, I've had enough, your not helping me or my family, you only bring me more hardship. Your cause is either false or simply not worth it.

In regard to looking at this as black or white, good point. The biggest mistake we as a nation could do is look at it that way. The variables are vast and they cover all of the areas, weapons, motivation, emotions, economic, social, religious and so on. No, we have to be flexible, open minded, diverse and so on, but above all, we must stay steady and true in our efforts against it. And above all, we do not change our core beliefs, culture or way of life, to accommodate the fear they hope to extend. Take steps to protect, sure. But, live in fear, no way. IMO, the one thing we each can do as individuals which hurts their cause, is not living in fear!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DevNell Wrote:

Do you think the terrorism we know today could fizzle out...age, max out?

Is it possible to comprehend that the choices we make in dealing with the fight can be immediately successful, yet have dire consequences down the line...think Afghanistan/Mujahideen. It's not all black and white for me. I think since terrorist organizations since the late sixties started thinking globally teh fight against them will be global in nature, but a war in reality and not just in an abstract concept?

Good comments, questions and points.

It has to be a global effort I truly believe that and it has to be on all levels.

Of course. Every President has said that. But there was no large enough constituency for a war in reality, or even a war in name only. Before 911 there was no way the American public would've stood for declarations of war or War resolutions to invade countries even sponsoring terrorism.

Will it fizzle out? Interesting question. It could if host nations make not worth setting up there. In other words, if all they receive are negative responses and reactions it could. But so long has they have places where they can crate some kind of infrastructure and organization, then no, I think there is enough hate and evil to keep it alive to some level of serious threat to many in the world.

so then you favor what Obama and others are saying about the need to help out other nations in trouble, so they do not spiral into a mess where they become breeding grounds and bases for terrorist organizations?

It's like the change almost has to come from the regular guy on the street in many of these nations simply saying, I've had enough, your not helping me or my family, you only bring me more hardship. Your cause is either false or simply not worth it.

In regard to looking at this as black or white, good point. The biggest mistake we as a nation could do is look at it that way. The variables are vast and they cover all of the areas, weapons, motivation, emotions, economic, social, religious and so on. No, we have to be flexible, open minded, diverse and so on, but above all, we must stay steady and true in our efforts against it. And above all, we do not change our core beliefs, culture or way of life, to accommodate the fear they hope to extend. Take steps to protect, sure. But, live in fear, no way. IMO, the one thing we each can do as individuals which hurts their cause, is not living in fear!

not for nothin' buddy but you are sounding more and more like Barack Hussein Obama himself with every post you make.

 

[Toro]

I did ask.

I also fully understand that we can be engaged in hostilities that look, taste and feel very much like war without having war been declared. In order for Congress to fund a war must not a war be declared? What else justifies the immense monetary effort in such a situation? where are the controls...the checks and balances over whether we get to enter into war?

War is a legal term as well as anything else, we justify it in the legal sphere.
How does the United States declare war on a non state entity? If only Congress has the powers to declare war what is the mechanism to declare war on terrorism?

Did we actually declare war on Afghanistan and then Iraq?

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, to deal militarily with the 20th century threats which if I remember included terrorism at that time.
War Powers Resolution of 1973

I think you raise interesting points regarding constitutional law and the division of powers between the Presidency and Congress. I do not know the answer to that question. I took your question in the OP as being more philosophical than technically legal regarding whether or not a terrorist entity or a state can declare war on one another, and whether or not 9/11 was an act of war or merely a criminal act.

please do not misinterpret what I am saying.

As far as the US Civil War goes, the Confederacy set up a legal mechanism that dealt with war legally. And there is a distinction with a difference when we call what transpired, a civil war.

The sub-Saharan situation is often one of massacres and incestual fighting.

Whether the waring factions actually declare war on one another or one side (the government) does is unknown by me. I'd have to research that one.

You do agree there can be battles, as in border skirmishes---transnational and nationally, that are horrendous in their effects, yet remain outside of the scope of what we would call a declared war or even war itself?

Regarding the legality of the Civil War as an analogy towards the war against terrorism, the philosophical retort would be for the government to enable a legal mechanism to wage war against terrorism as they did with the Civil War. Whether or not the government has done that sufficiently regarding terrorism, I have no idea.

Most wars fought in the world today are not between states. In fact, wars between states are rare. Instead, wars are fought between mercenary armies or proxies, whether that is in sub-Saharan Africa, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East or wherever, often funded by states.

As for the formal declaration of war, I believe every single military action undertaken by the United States since World War II have not incurred a declaration of war, though I most certainly could be wrong about that. Perhaps we did declare war against North Vietnam and North Korea, I cannot remember.

However, military actions to remove Noriega and the government in Grenada were certainly not under normal circumstances of war and could best be described as "police actions" (or "violations of international sovereignty," depending on your point of view). Thus, if we can militarily engage in removing rogue elements within formal governments, then we certainly can do so against nongovernmental entities and not formally declare war.

Whether or not the government can declare a formal act of war against a terrorist organization, I honestly do not know. However, I do believe that actions by al-Qaeda, philosophically speaking, were intended as acts of war against the United States, regardless of the US legal delineation between criminal acts and acts of war.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I did ask.

I also fully understand that we can be engaged in hostilities that look, taste and feel very much like war without having war been declared. In order for Congress to fund a war must not a war be declared? What else justifies the immense monetary effort in such a situation? where are the controls...the checks and balances over whether we get to enter into war?

War is a legal term as well as anything else, we justify it in the legal sphere.
How does the United States declare war on a non state entity? If only Congress has the powers to declare war what is the mechanism to declare war on terrorism?

Did we actually declare war on Afghanistan and then Iraq?

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, to deal militarily with the 20th century threats which if I remember included terrorism at that time.
War Powers Resolution of 1973

I think you raise interesting points regarding constitutional law and the division of powers between the Presidency and Congress. I do not know the answer to that question. I took your question in the OP as being more philosophical than technically legal regarding whether or not a terrorist entity or a state can declare war on one another, and whether or not 9/11 was an act of war or merely a criminal act.

My questions were probably philosophical and technical. Sorry for not being clearer, but it took where the thread was going to flush it all out. I can see it from all sides. I am truly a liberal and no wingnut. I have consistently said since my first days on a political forum that I view the opposition as opponents and not enemies. Of course that gets put aside in an election.

But there are principles I do not easily disregard and not all those principles dictate party loyalty. Plus, I left the Democratic Party recently. It was a long time coming. Some people think this is the time to belong. I was never a very good joiner of causes.

As a technical issue how do you see it all? What do we do? What will the world do? We will not always be the biggest kid on the block. We will be a contender, but...

please do not misinterpret what I am saying.

As far as the US Civil War goes, the Confederacy set up a legal mechanism that dealt with war legally. And there is a distinction with a difference when we call what transpired, a civil war.

The sub-Saharan situation is often one of massacres and incestual fighting.

Whether the waring factions actually declare war on one another or one side (the government) does is unknown by me. I'd have to research that one.

You do agree there can be battles, as in border skirmishes---transnational and nationally, that are horrendous in their effects, yet remain outside of the scope of what we would call a declared war or even war itself?

Regarding the legality of the Civil War as an analogy towards the war against terrorism, the philosophical retort would be for the government to enable a legal mechanism to wage war against terrorism as they did with the Civil War. Whether or not the government has done that sufficiently regarding terrorism, I have no idea.

Most wars fought in the world today are not between states. In fact, wars between states are rare. Instead, wars are fought between mercenary armies or proxies, whether that is in sub-Saharan Africa, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East or wherever, often funded by states.

As for the formal declaration of war, I believe every single military action undertaken by the United States since World War II have not incurred a declaration of war, though I most certainly could be wrong about that. Perhaps we did declare war against North Vietnam and North Korea, I cannot remember.

However, military actions to remove Noriega and the government in Grenada were certainly not under normal circumstances of war and could best be described as "police actions" (or "violations of international sovereignty," depending on your point of view). Thus, if we can militarily engage in removing rogue elements within formal governments, then we certainly can do so against nongovernmental entities and not formally declare war.

Whether or not the government can declare a formal act of war against a terrorist organization, I honestly do not know. However, I do believe that actions by al-Qaeda, philosophically speaking, were intended as acts of war against the United States, regardless of the US legal delineation between criminal acts and acts of war.

I believe the government needs to look at the mechanism, but sadly I admit I would not have trusted the government under the GOP Congress. They ran roughshod over lots. The Delay agenda was party power over principle. Look at what those bozos did to the GOP. I was no fan of the GOP since Reagan, but at least under Regan and GHWB the GOP was a party of principle.
Under Rove and others the GOP became a party struggling to redefine itself as a permanent majority...power over principle at all costs.

The cold war was fought with proxies for many reasons. One unsaid reason was like with the war on terror there wasn't the public support to wage a real war. So we sent other nations weapons and used them as strategic pawns.

North Vietnam and North Korea? Off the top of my head I can tell we did not declare war.

as far as what al qaeda and what it wants to rephrase what it is they did on 911...I will never grant them the power to say they went to war with the USA. They didn't. they performed cowardly acts of terrorism.

911, was not an act of war. It was a cowardly action against innocent civilins of all stripes...Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians and Atheists and who knows what else perished in a horrific act of cowardice masked as a fight.

It's like a bully going up behind a group of little kids and running them over with a car and saying he beat them up. No. He ran them over from behind.

At least with the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, they risked getting shot down by their targets...military targets.

 

[auditor0007]

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

I don't think anyone outside the United States uses the term "War on Terror" anymore. Even the brits are giving it up.

We should never have elevated Bin Ladin to the status of feared enemy warrior. That only enhanced his stature, and prestige among a certain small element of the muslim world.

We should have always called him a criminal thug who committed an act of serial murder.

I know it's difficult to come to terms with this, but it's not just Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, this is just the beginning. The fundamentalist/radical wing of Islam is the strong arm of Islam at this time, and it is growing stronger.

If you look at Lebanon, you will get a glimpse of what Europe will look like in about 75 years. When Muslims become the majority within any country, or even get close to becoming the majority, they will do whatever it takes to gain control so that they can enforce their ideology upon everyone else.

As Muslims slowly but surely move closer to being the majority in Europe, the same thing will happen as happened in Lebanon, unless their is a complete backlash agains Muslims and they are driven out.

You can call Al Qaida and terrorists criminals all you want, but don't kid yourself; they are at war with us. When I say us, I don't mean the US, I mean any country, society, or person, who is not Muslim. If we choose to pretend we are not at war with them, they will have the upper hand. What it boils down to is whether or not we take their threat seriously and whether or not we realize that this is not just a small group of criminals but a growing movement that will eventually encompass all Muslims.

 

[Lycurgus]

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

I don't think anyone outside the United States uses the term "War on Terror" anymore. Even the brits are giving it up.

We should never have elevated Bin Ladin to the status of feared enemy warrior. That only enhanced his stature, and prestige among a certain small element of the muslim world.

We should have always called him a criminal thug who committed an act of serial murder.

I know it's difficult to come to terms with this, but it's not just Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, this is just the beginning. The fundamentalist/radical wing of Islam is the strong arm of Islam at this time, and it is growing stronger.

If you look at Lebanon, you will get a glimpse of what Europe will look like in about 75 years. When Muslims become the majority within any country, or even get close to becoming the majority, they will do whatever it takes to gain control so that they can enforce their ideology upon everyone else.

As Muslims slowly but surely move closer to being the majority in Europe, the same thing will happen as happened in Lebanon, unless their is a complete backlash agains Muslims and they are driven out.

You can call Al Qaida and terrorists criminals all you want, but don't kid yourself; they are at war with us. When I say us, I don't mean the US, I mean any country, society, or person, who is not Muslim. If we choose to pretend we are not at war with them, they will have the upper hand. What it boils down to is whether or not we take their threat seriously and whether or not we realize that this is not just a small group of criminals but a growing movement that will eventually encompass all Muslims.

Your right, it is not simply about Bin Laden and Al Qaida and it began long, long before them.

A good example to what you speak is the Albanian movements in the Balkan Nations.

The Lebanese have always been known throughout history as gracious, life loving people, ethnic Lebanese.
Now look at them, what is left of that core culture from so long ago?

It's fair to say that radical and savage radical beliefs, no matter the cause or movement are destructive and this one is huge.

History is a fine teacher, yet we so often choose to ignore it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know it's difficult to come to terms with this, but it's not just Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, this is just the beginning. The fundamentalist/radical wing of Islam is the strong arm of Islam at this time, and it is growing stronger.

If you look at Lebanon, you will get a glimpse of what Europe will look like in about 75 years. When Muslims become the majority within any country, or even get close to becoming the majority, they will do whatever it takes to gain control so that they can enforce their ideology upon everyone else.

As Muslims slowly but surely move closer to being the majority in Europe, the same thing will happen as happened in Lebanon, unless their is a complete backlash agains Muslims and they are driven out.

You can call Al Qaida and terrorists criminals all you want, but don't kid yourself; they are at war with us. When I say us, I don't mean the US, I mean any country, society, or person, who is not Muslim. If we choose to pretend we are not at war with them, they will have the upper hand. What it boils down to is whether or not we take their threat seriously and whether or not we realize that this is not just a small group of criminals but a growing movement that will eventually encompass all Muslims.

I understand the cultural war and all, but all of Islam is not at war with the western world. I think you are too fear based in your world view, but that's okay. We will see about Europe. I remember the civil war in Lebanon and you are engaging in a bit of revisionist history and that too is okay.

We should be on alert as westerners, but I believe in the power of our values over the dark forces of radical Islam. Islam will maybe wake up and shake them off...who knows.

I don't do gloom and doom very well, never did. I am not one of those bash Bush and Cheney wingnuts although I have had a bit of fun doing so at times.

you sound alarmist and hysterical. but I do know where you are coming from.

keep the watch

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your right, it is not simply about Bin Laden and Al Qaida and it began long, long before them.

A good example to what you speak is the Albanian movements in the Balkan Nations.

The Lebanese have always been known throughout history as gracious, life loving people, ethnic Lebanese.
Now look at them, what is left of that core culture from so long ago?

It's fair to say that radical and savage radical beliefs, no matter the cause or movement are destructive and this one is huge.

History is a fine teacher, yet we so often choose to ignore it.

I remember the Lebanese civil war. You all have differing visions of what you imagine happened.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

thank you for the conversation. this thread has just about run it's course for me.

I smell a devolution or a change and I was as allergic to change a year ago as I am now.

thanks

d.

 

[Munin]

I think it is a criminal act of war. Because it would be considered a war crime no matter what, people who deliberately kill civilians are criminals no matter what organization they belong too.

Although with the organization of Al Quada not being part of one Nation only, even organizations can wage war (like the CIA or other intelligence agencies who can do it secretly for example).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think it is a criminal act of war. Because it would be considered a war crime no matter what, people who deliberately kill civilians are criminals no matter what organization they belong too.

Although with the organization of Al Quada not being part of one Nation only, even organizations can wage war (like the CIA or other intelligence agencies who can do it secretly for example).

Technically the CIA or other Intel agencies cannot wage war. That is why spys are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions.


Individuals and organizations that are not states do not have the same protections. methinks you are mistaking how we were using the term 'war'.


technically...
The war on drugs is not really a war. A gang war is not really a war.

 

[Ravi]

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

I don't think anyone outside the United States uses the term "War on Terror" anymore. Even the brits are giving it up.

We should never have elevated Bin Ladin to the status of feared enemy warrior. That only enhanced his stature, and prestige among a certain small element of the muslim world.

We should have always called him a criminal thug who committed an act of serial murder.

Very true.

I can understand why some would consider it an act of war, if they follow the conclusion that the fundie Muslims are just doing what Saudi Arabia wants them to do. But since Saudi Arabia is our ally it is hard to draw that conclusion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

I don't think anyone outside the United States uses the term "War on Terror" anymore. Even the brits are giving it up.

We should never have elevated Bin Ladin to the status of feared enemy warrior. That only enhanced his stature, and prestige among a certain small element of the muslim world.

We should have always called him a criminal thug who committed an act of serial murder.

Very true.

I can understand why some would consider it an act of war, if they follow the conclusion that the fundie Muslims are just doing what Saudi Arabia wants them to do. But since Saudi Arabia is our ally it is hard to draw that conclusion.

Saudi Arabia is at odds with the Muslim extremists. sure their system has bred much of it, but we breed criminals in our ghettos...is ghetto crime part of the want of the US powers?

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish? Do you make distinctions between the Saudi brand(s) of Islam and others that appear to be extreme?

 

[editec]

It is my understanding that a WAR requires two or more NATION STATES.

Hence terrorists cannot commit acts of war, but they certainly can commit acts of sobatage.

Now any nation which harbors those people IS committing an act of WAR, and is therefore fair game IF it can be proven.

 

[Munin]

I think it is a criminal act of war. Because it would be considered a war crime no matter what, people who deliberately kill civilians are criminals no matter what organization they belong too.

Although with the organization of Al Quada not being part of one Nation only, even organizations can wage war (like the CIA or other intelligence agencies who can do it secretly for example).

Technically the CIA or other Intel agencies cannot wage war. That is why spys are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions.


Individuals and organizations that are not states do not have the same protections. methinks you are mistaking how we were using the term 'war'.

Well that still is very questionable, an organization can be supported very much by another country and that could be considered as an act of war. Isn't that why NATO, the US are at war vs Afghanistan (Taliban regime) since 9/11?

And spies are technically never at war because the government that uses the spies normally would not recognize them. But in reality they can fund a war (the CIA in Afghanistan vs Soviets), fight in a war (the CIA in Tibet vs China & maybe also in the war Georgia vs Russian Federation) or just train people who are in that war.

 

[Ravi]

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish?

Yes. Not so much the Saudi princes but the religious leaders, who basically control the princes anyway.

 

[Toro]

Saudi Arabia is at odds with the Muslim extremists. sure their system has bred much of it, but we breed criminals in our ghettos...is ghetto crime part of the want of the US powers?

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish? Do you make distinctions between the Saudi brand(s) of Islam and others that appear to be extreme?

Depends what you mean by "at odds." They are at odds with the extremists who want to take down the House of Saud, which many pious Muslims view as corrupt. However, Wahhabi'ism would very much be considered an extremist religion unto itself, more in line with the teachings of the Taliban than any other branch of Islam, let alone Christianity.

 

[auditor0007]

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish?

Yes. Not so much the Saudi princes but the religious leaders, who basically control the princes anyway.

If Saudi Arabia was ruled by the majority, it would be ruled by fundamentalist Muslims who support Sharia Law, and it would not be friendly to the US. Just the facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is my understanding that a WAR requires two or more NATION STATES.

Hence terrorists cannot commit acts of war, but they certainly can commit acts of sobatage.

Now any nation which harbors those people IS committing an act of WAR, and is therefore fair game IF it can be proven.

And that is why most of America was with Bush after 911 when we went into Afghanistan. Then he blew the best thing that has happened in America in a long time...we had a nation undivided ...and he blew it.

sigh