[extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> You know, I had to laugh at that.  But I think you'll
> find yourself chuckling too, at least if you like dark
> humor about serious situations.
> 
> Terrorism has a definition.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
> cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998
> version:
> 
> > The act of terrorizing, or state of being
> > terrorized; a mode of government by terror or
> > intimidation.

This is an irrelevant definition. The only important one is that
defined in the Geneva Conventions:

a) engaging in acts of violence or threats of violence against
civilians, while,
b) not wearing a uniform that distinguishes the combatant from a
civilian, and/or,
c) seeking shelter in civilian communities or facilities (except for
seeking health care in hospitals).

Similarly civilians or civilian facilities which are used as shelter by
illegal combatants become legitimate military targets under the GCs.

The fact that McVeigh didn't wear a recognisable uniform made him an
illegal combatant, but not a terrorist. Under the Geneva Conventions,
McVeighs attack on the Murrah Federal Building was only a terrorist act
in that he purposely set off his bomb when he knew there would be
children in the day care center. The deaths of all federal agents and
employees, and the bombing of the building itself, were legitimate acts
of war. 

Conversely, the actions of the ATF and FBI against the Davidian
compound in Waco were terrorism because the ATF initiated violence.
While Koresh violated unconstitutional laws, he did not preach the
overthrow of any government, he only predicted what did happen, would
happen.

Israeli attacks on Hamas militants are legitimate acts of war. The
bulldozing of buildings used for shelter by Palestinian combatants are
legimitate acts of war, as is the bulldozing of homes paid for with
bounty money paid for homicide bombings. Such bounties are not normal
military pay, nor are they legitimate death benefits, they are paid
specifically for the act of blowing ones self up in an act of terrorism
against civilians, which is not an act of war. Paying rewards for war
crimes is itself a war crime, as is accepting such rewards.

Now, you may say, "but everything you say seems to give the advantage
to the more powerful military forces." This is exactly so. This was
partly the intent of the Geneva Conventions, originally, to maintain
the eminence of the Powers of the 19th century and help prevent the
emergence of new powers strictly as a result of military conquest and
sponsorship of insurgencies. It forced nations to become Powers through
peaceful economic development, as the United States did in the 1890's,
as Japan did a few years later.

The other intent of the GCs was to try to isolate military action from
civilian action, so that a nation's infrastructure would not be
destroyed by conflict. This has come under serious attack by the 20th
century history of Total War and Revolutionary Insurgency. The only way
to put the genie back in the bottle is to be very severe about the
enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, demanding nations have strictly
enforced military codes, and taking to task those nations that do not.

We need to put that genie back in the bottle, or the case for
individual liberty in the future is severely threatened.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003