So it's about winning without screwing up longer term objectives (such as not being seen as pariahs by the rest of the world)? That seems sane to me.

zornhau,

I might agree with you if we were talking about an existential threat, and to some extent it is, but we'll need to live with ourselves after it's over. That requires living up to the agreements we've made with the rest of the world, and hoping the rest of the world could somehow live up to theirs.


Andrew G,

You're correct, but the phrase "unlawful combatant" is only with respect to the civilized world. As I understand it, the Viet Cong were accorded privileges as POWs under certain conditions, and not under others. That didn't just happen by magic. Al Qaeda is fully capable of finding some common ground with us that could get them such special status as well. That ball was always in their court but there was never any real pressure to get them to respect at least a few of the laws of war.

I don't think it's a matter of moral, just conflicting desires for how the world should be. I rather like the West and the US's view of how the world should be, as opposes to the Taliban et al.

From how I see it, both sides are equally legitimate or illegitimate in their use of conflict. It's not a matter of lawful or unlawful. Nations made the rules about what's permissible to protect their monopoly on power.

So the idea that Taliban or other Islamic fighters are somehow less legitimate than a member of a state military or mercenaries rings hollow to me.

Note, this is completely separate from the tactics used by either side. Perhaps the terrorist acts make them less deserving of rights, but to me that would ring true for any combatant regardless of who they work for.

I think that's the problem. Rights are easy to bandy around, but they're only meaningful in a "you can nail them down sort of way" when somebody with the power to do so agrees to grant them. Once you get to state level, it gets rather nebulous.

It seems more productive to debate the morality of specific means and specific objectives, and whether the one is justified by the other.

If the War on Terror is morally wrong (e.g. because all war is wrong, or because it's based on false premises), then all means used to pursue it are wrong - there's no point in debating them.

If the War on Terror is morally right, then the means are up for debate.

Is there really an answer to that question you'd be happy with?

It depends on how you look at it. The American revolutionaries said it came from God. The Taliban don't claim to think of it as rights so much as their duty to God, but it amounts to the same thing. Or, you could look at it as human nature, in which case these rights are simply asserted by those who believe they have a claim to them as much as anyone else, if not more so.

My guess is that most revolutionaries will use either God and/or "the people" as an excuse, whatever their true rationale.

Sorry, I'm lost here. Where do these rights come from?

I can't resist comparing Andrew G.'s point to the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, in an oddball way, the Taliban could imagine they had the right to break out of the established order. Likewise, the civilized nations of the world (most of them, anyway) had the right not to recognize them. And once that happened, the U.S. had reason to treat them as unlawful combatants.

"What's so special about States that they get a free pass to fight whoever they want?"

Because they can. To what higher authority are you appealing?
 
"What's the difference between the Taliban and North Korea or Iran? Or the various groups in Congo, or the cartels in Columbia?"

Just because you can fight anybody, doesn't mean you have to. This is like saying: "Well if you think non-reproductive sex is OK, then why aren't you sleeping with that sheep over there?"

Mark Pontin "You do understand that almost any historian will tell you that the primary reason for the development of the 'state' in the first place was -- explicitly and precisely -- so that there would be a civil entity that would have a monopoly on violence, both against criminals and non-territorial aggressors?"

I don't know if I'd call it *the* primary reason, but it's natural for any large group to want to limit potential sources of conflict. And while organized states may have done some good things, I don't think giving themselves the sole right to conduct warfare is one of them.

What's so special about States that they get a free pass to fight whoever they want? What's the difference between the Taliban and North Korea or Iran? Or the various groups in Congo, or the cartels in Columbia?

Michael,

Bush didn't invent that procedure. There's no reason he should move slower than his predecessors. If there's a problem with this then it should have been addressed in prior administrations.

"It really doesn't matter what the law says, as long as they can abscond with enough before we all catch on."

Actually, I think that was Bush's point. It does matter what the law says, just as it matters what the Constitution says, and what the Geneva Convention treaty actually says. Like it or not, they put all that fine print in there for a reason.

Andrew G: 'Now, I do have some issues with the concept of an unlawful combatant. Giving states a monopoly on warfare is a bad idea.'

You do understand that almost any historian will tell you that the primary reason for the development of the 'state' in the first place was -- explicitly and precisely -- so that there would be a civil entity that would have a monopoly on violence, both against criminals and non-territorial aggressors?

Randy:

... President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power ... That's his job as expressed in his oath of office. If any law does conflict with the Constitution then following it would be unconstitutional.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, thus by Steve's rules unqualified to express an opinion on American civics, but I had always understood that the courts decide the constitutionality of law, and that America is a government of law, not a personality cult. I don't think the President is supposed to be above the law. If he believes a law is unconstitutional, he should challenge it in court like anyone else.

--- P.S. I just realized that article runs parallel to Bush's hyper-technical reading of the Geneva Conventions. It's even more interesting when you look at it that way.

Yeah. Not surprising, though, not to me anyway. The Administration will simply always say whatever makes them look best. It really doesn't matter what the law says, as long as they can abscond with enough before we all catch on. Kleptocracy writ global. Aided by useful idiots, of course.

Charlie, I agree with Andrew G. If you start a political thread, you're going to have us all frothing at the mouth for a couple of days. No harm in that. "You started it."

Andrew G, I agree with you on another point -- Steve and Charlie are both good authors, and I enjoy their work. I don't care what their politics are when I read them and with specific reference to Steve's work, I enjoy a kick-ass fantasy as well as the next Hoosier -- but I care deeply about people's politics when expressed in public. I seem to recall a quote downthread, something about good men standing idly or something? (The irony, it burns!)

For those interested, the URL for lidless eye is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LidlessEye/
Politics there are probably pretty extreme from a European or Australian perspective.

For discussing Steve's work, we use this list, where politics is discouraged: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stirling/


For the record, I think Steve and Charlie are both great authors and I immensely enjoy their work. I don't care what their politics are. I also love the way that both regularly communicate with their fans, and hope they both continue to do so.

Stross: "I think I am going to have to discontinue these discussion threads if this goes on.
Comments?"

I really like the discussion threads...

I think if you're going to allow discussion of politics and similar you have to be willing to accept a certain ammount of hostility between people at times.

One option is to only all discussion of things relating to your works, or to somehow separate the two discussions.

Stirling's fan list doesn't allow discussion of modern politics, so many of the members have their own discussion group called "lidless eye". Stirling himself doesn't participate there, though there are plenty with similar veiws. This way we get to discuss Steve's work and other things in a friendly, peaceful environment and take discussions of more contentious topics elsewhere.

Thanks for the reply Andrew. So it comes down to this: in Hicks' case, America invades Afghanistan (and I do think that overthrowing the Taliban was a good idea), finds Hicks fighting there for the Taliban and because he's not Afghani, they take him halfway across the planet with a sedative suppository up his arse and put him in gaol for four years without trial.

I agree, the concept of unlawful combatant is pretty shaky. Do they also define lawful combatants? Makes you wonder how they would have seen Spain in the 1930s...

TerryF:If David Hicks is all the things you say, why won't your government try him in a court of law, rather than the military tribunal travesty they have at Guantanamo? And why didn't they do it four years ago? Do you believe in the rule of law, or just whatever ugly and expedient brutality makes you and your ilk feel comfy at home?

I'm not sure civilian courts have any jursidiction in these cases. AFAIK, none of them have ever been in the US, committed any crimes there, or broken any US laws.

But it's not a matter of breaking laws, it's a matter of being captured taking up arms against the US, as an unlawful combatant.

Now, I do have some issues with the concept of an unlawful combatant. Giving states a monopoly on warfare is a bad idea.