Is an act of war a criminal act?

Question

In combat, an army doesn't - can't - take the time to figure out which soldiers on the OTHER side fired, or whether they intended to kill or simply wound, or whether they were fighting willingly or were conscripted. In combat, our soldiers shoot their soldiers.

A crime, on the other hand, involves an individualized determination of state of mind, and the elements of the crime, and whether a crime in fact occurred or was going to occur (attempt or conspiracy to commit).

So what if a person intends to commit an act of war? What if a person, intending to bring down the US government through violent means a la military action, and in support of a nation or organization that also seeks to bring down the US government through violent means, plots to kill US citizens?

It is a crime, no question. But should it be treated as an act of war?
Also, if the person does NOT comply with the Geneva Convention treaties (i.e., the person does NOT wear a uniform), why should US?

LIBS would treat every discharge of a weapon as a criminal investigation, especially in combat.
But should the Dix Six be treated as simply criminals, or as an attemtping to commit an act of war?

Answer 1

Hi there Hon...I believe to plot an attack of an entity such as a country with the intent to destroy the government or it's citizen's by an individual or another entity is an act of war! the Dix would be attacker's committed an act of war albeit unsuccessful but the intent was clear...they committed an act of war and should be treated as such.
To investigate every shot fired during a war is a ridiculous thing to do...

If you are a friend of my enemy then you are my enemy....and how many Americans like to say "all is fair in love and war"

Answer 2

Wars are mostly fought by governments, but there are complications. When a nation is invaded, it is the responsibility of all citizens to defend their country, not just the army. Therefore, citizens defending their country from a foreign invasion should be treated with the same standards as are members of the formal army.

The idea that Afghani citizens, for example, could not legally help to defend their country and cannot legitimately resist the occupation is absurd. Of course that's hard to see and harder to admit when it is one's own government that invaded and is occupying the country. It is equally absurd, though, to believe that Tim McVeigh should have been treated as a prisoner of war.

Is there a grey area in the middle? I don't think so. But that's what the sorting process that takes place when a prisoner is captured is supposed to determine, but the process was subverted in Afghanistan to suit the purposes of the Bush administration.

The military is not to blame. Even if they agreed with the administration and were happy to follow orders, they would have followed orders that didn't make sense to them with the same competent efficiency. Orders are orders, after all, and soldiers do not make policy. Then problems that have come to light with the way the prisoners were captured and processed in Afghanistan are entirely the responsibility of the bush administration.

Answer 3

Unless a formal Declaration of War has been issued, acts of war are crimes. Once a country has been attacked the first time (with or with out a declaration) then a state of war exists and further acts of war are no longer criminal.
Violations of the Geneva Convention are War Crimes and subject to being tried in the Hague. It does not matter who signed or not.

Answer 4

Interesting. My opinion is that the Fort Dix Six were not a militia, do not wear a uniform and do not follow the Geneva convention. Therefore, there actions are simply criminal, not acts of war. Regardless of the semantics, if they are guilty of what they have been accused, I don't see how either classification would alter sentencing for the better or worse.

Answer 5

It was a good question until you brought politics into it. I am trying to understand why you would make a seperate statement about the libs.
I would have to say it depends on the situation. If we attack someone aggressively on false allegations (WMD's) then that is a perfectly ok act of war.
If someone attacks us, then that is criminal.

It sounds rediculous doesn't it? But you conservatives always try to muddy the waters with your ridiculous liberal accusations. Well, It is what it is and it is that simple.

By the way, The US signed the Geneva Convention and several other human rights treaties, So I guess it is ok to torture people (even innocent people) even though we gave our word that we wouldn't.

Answer 6

solid question. TERRORISM IS A criminal ACT committed against a rustic OR united states of america for this reason HAVING THE 'reason TO commence up A conflict. while a rustic facilitates TERRORISM TO REIGN of their own outdoor and don't end IT THEN THEY probability HAVING different countries TAKE OVER AND DO WHAT ought to be carried out. those international places at the instant are not sufferers AS OTHERS have self assurance. THEY BREED TERRORISTS WHAT DOES THAT SAY approximately THEM. that's the reason they're pronounced as 0.33 type international places. while became THE final TIME YOU observed a team OF "AMERICAN TERRORIST'S" circulate to A distant places united states of america AND BLOW UP THEIR reminiscent of OUR TOWERS crammed with harmless CIVILIANS, because of the fact THEY wanted THE "interest" OF that distinctive government? that is RIDICULOUS!!! i want to appreciate WHY OUR government CAN placed a guy on the MOON yet can not discover OSAMA. ANY united states of america THAT BREEDS TERRORISM OF THE value THAT triggered this conflict must be WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH,. EVA

Answer 7

The one that is a US citizen has to be treated as such, charged with terrorism and treason charges, and hung (OK, executed).

The other, being aliens, are not subject to the same constitutional processes and may be handled in the same manner as other enemy combatants are currently.

There is no act of war in this case as they weren't acting on behalf of any nation. They are terrorists who had the intent to perpetrate a horrific act pure and simple. Incompetent, bungling terrorists, but terrorists nonetheless.

Answer 8

No. Act of war is just that. Declaring war on a nation.

Answer 9

Riverman,

I think you need to rethink your assertion that Iraq had no provocation in regards to this war. They are by no means 'innocent'.....

Answer 10

A premeditaded and unprovoked act of war is a crime. The Al-quaeda attack on the WTC was a crime. The US attack on Iraq (which was not connected with the WTC attack and posed no military threat to the USA) was a crime also.