Body Count

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

At 1:19 PM -0800 12/8/02, Luke Weiger wrote:
>Why should our response to the perpetrators of a series of attacks 
>like those seen on 9-11 vary depending on whether or not the 
>responsible party was a large gang of terrorists or a state like 
>Guatemala?  I understand the rhetorical move you've been trying to 
>make: a "crime" should be responded to with only police 
>investigation whereas a "military attack" can justifiably be 
>responded to with military force.  Now I'm trying to see exactly why 
>it is you think any entity that isn't recognized as a state also 
>isn't capable of military attack, no matter how many people they 
>kill as a result of their actions.

Non-state actors -- e.g., anti-colonial guerrillas -- are capable of 
military attacks, but if you recognize them as combatants in war, you 
have to treat them as such.  I don't know why anyone wants to elevate 
the status of 9.11 terrorists from that of criminals to that of 
combatants in war.  Combatants in war have more rights -- protected 
by the Geneva Convention*, relevant UN resolutions, etc. -- than 
criminals.  For instance, it is illegal to execute prisoners of war, 
whereas it is legal to execute those who are convicted and sentenced 
to death in a nation that still practices capital punishment.

*  Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 
adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the 
Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of 
Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949, 
entry into force 21 October 1950, 
<http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm>.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>