[lbo-talk] The Institute for Counter-Terrorism replies to B'Tselem report ....

Chuck Grimes cgrimes at rawbw.com
Mon Sep 21 15:24:19 PDT 2009


``(ii) There is not need to positively identify somebody as a non-combatant to be protected. It is the other way round: As long as there is no reliable indication that someone is a combatant, the rule of doubt applies. iii) `Affiliation' with an armed group as such does not suffice..''

--------

Thanks for posting these updates and arguments going on in Israel. Much of this stuff applies to US and US actions in the ME. It's helpful to be reminded why we in the US have to keep pressing AG Holder and others to start cleaning up the US Dept Justice, get rid of the Patriot Act, and clean out the Pentagon beginning with cancelling all these private contractors.

Here the use of contractors puts in place a policy of political and legal deniability for a lot of criminal activity going on in the US government and military forces. There are several US laws that can be applied to them and their conduct.

As far as I know AG Holder hasn't been showing much deligence in investigating and setting up cases for prosecution. It was rather quietly announced Holder will investigate some thing arising out the use of torture. The Pentagon will say the CIA did it and the CIA will say the private contractors did it. The contractors can turn around and say the laws don't apply to them.

Meanwhile there are cases working their way through US courts to force the US government to bring these contractors and companies into compliance with various laws.

For those who are interested in the whole issue of law, human rights, and private contractors:

``Today, contractors working for the U.S. government and military outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq...''

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/dvd-house-party/qa-private-military-contractors/page.do?id=1231048

So people here see the problem. Plus I think the Iraqi government still hasn't changed the IPA law that makes contractor immune to prosecution.

In the other direction, the patriot act, (I think) there are various provisions that try to make the opposite case from the quote above i.e. that mere association constitutes support for named terrorist organizations.

It seems to me that guilt by association as a legal principle is usually ruled as not acceptible practice.

On the other hand, getting down into the minutae of military conduct and law seems to forget, the larger wrong. What is the US doing in Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place? For Isreal, what was the IDF doing in Gaza or the West Bank in the first place? And of course one side's terrorist is the other side's freedom fighter, etc.

CG



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list