Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Pirates Challenge Obama's Pre-9/11 Mentality - WSJ.com
"Unlawful enemy combatants" have been around since Roman times.
In today's world, they are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they don't fight by the "rules".
I don't think we should change that...
In today's world, they are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they don't fight by the "rules".
I don't think we should change that...
In the Wall Street Journal Mackubin Thomas Owens discusses the issue:
"Second, the various new substitutes for 'unlawful enemy combatant' abolish an important distinction in traditional international law. As the eminent military historian Sir Michael Howard argued shortly after 9/11, the status of al Qaeda terrorists is to be found in a distinction first made by the Romans and subsequently incorporated into international law by way of medieval and early modern European jurisprudence. According to Mr. Howard, the Romans distinguished between bellum (war against legitimus hostis, a legitimate enemy) and guerra (war against latrunculi, pirates, robbers, brigands and outlaws).
Bellum became the standard for interstate conflict, and it is here that the Geneva Conventions were meant to apply. They do not apply to guerra. Indeed, punishment for latrunculi, 'the common enemies of mankind,' traditionally has been summary execution."
