Was the killing in Woolwich murder or part of the war?

[Brainaddict]

Now don't get me wrong, I think that war is murder, but the law says differently. Killing a soldier in war is not considered murder afaik (I don't think there are particular rules around off-duty soldiers - maybe someone can tell me). So in Afghanistan there are already non-Afghans fighting against British soldiers and this is part of the war there, in which our nation is participating. So was this attack simply a part of the war that happened to take place on 'our' territory? Is it fundamentally ethically different from what is happening in Afghanistan? And is our shock at the brutality of it partly an admission that we don't really think about the war very much and are simply horrified to find it arriving here rather than staying safely over there?

 

[agricola]

Running an unarmed someone over in a car, then attacking them with knives and a cleaver is murder.

 

[frogwoman]

it was a deranged killing, i dont think it was partof the war at all.

 

[Brainaddict]

It doesn't really address my question. If it is part of a war then technically it is not murder (even if you or I might see all killing as murder). So what makes it not part of the war?

 

[bi0boy]

Running an unarmed someone over in a car, then attacking them with knives and a cleaver is murder.

Not necessarily. I can imagine such a scenario might have occurred between soldiers in WWII

In this case however I don't believe all the participants were soldiers of countries that are officially at war with each other.

 

[Santino]

It doesn't really address my question. If it is part of a war then technically it is not murder (even if you or I might see all killing as murder). So what makes it not part of the war?

What fact are you trying to establish? What are the consequences of the answer your question?

 

[JimW]

It doesn't really address my question. If it is part of a war then technically it is not murder (even if you or I might see all killing as murder). So what makes it not part of the war?

In technical terms I think you're expected to constitute yourself as an army and make formal declarations, put a uniform on etc. to have that sort of defence in law. (ETA and war is something that occurs between nation states too IIRC) Outside the law it'll come down to personal/political judgement I suppose.

 

[Brainaddict]

What fact are you trying to establish? What are the consequences of the answer your question?

Partly I am interested in the technical legal aspect of it. Partly I suppose that I find it worth reminding people that 'our' nation is at war, and that this is very easy to forget most of the time. Today not so easy to forget, but should we be outraged if something that could happen every day in Afghanistan comes to our doorsteps?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It doesn't really address my question. If it is part of a war then technically it is not murder (even if you or I might see all killing as murder). So what makes it not part of the war?

TBH, I'm not sure this is a question I could answer. By 'technically', you really mean 'from the point of view of power', no? I can't speak for power.

 

[Brainaddict]

In technical terms I think you're expected to constitute yourself as an army and make formal declarations, put a uniform on etc. to have that sort of defence in law. (ETA and war is something that occurs between nation states too IIRC) Outside the law it'll come down to personal/political judgement I suppose.

Does this apply to taliban/al qaeda type militias in Afghanistan too? Are they all considered to be committing acts of war or acts of murder? I suspect a court would reasonably have to consider it war even though they technically have no blessing from a nation to do what they are doing.

 

[Dan U]

really surprised Jazzz hasn't been on to blame a false flag yet

 

[Brainaddict]

TBH, I'm not sure this is a question I could answer. By 'technically', you really mean 'from the point of view of power', no? I can't speak for power.

But in the technical sense I mean that, considered objectively by a judge with no nationalist feelings (hard to find I know), could a court find a legal difference between this attack in the UK and a similar attack in Afghanistan?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But in the technical sense I mean that, considered objectively by a judge with no nationalist feelings (hard to find I know), could a court find a legal difference between this attack in the UK and a similar attack in Afghanistan?

Yes, if they wanted to. No, if they didn't want to. Because they would be making a judgement as to the legitimacy of power.

Legitimate power monopolises legal violence - so who is the legitimate power needs to be judged before any court can judge anything.

 

[Belushi]

Does this apply to taliban/al qaeda type militias in Afghanistan too? Are they all considered to be committing acts of war or acts of murder? I suspect a court would reasonably have to consider it war even though they technically have no blessing from a nation to do what they are doing.

The Americans justify locking them up in guantanamo or killing them with drones because they're 'enemy combatants' iirc.

 

[2hats]

I find it worth reminding people that 'our' nation is at war

Which nation you are referring to here?

Where and when was this 'war' declared?

 

[editor]

Partly I am interested in the technical legal aspect of it. Partly I suppose that I find it worth reminding people that 'our' nation is at war, and that this is very easy to forget most of the time. Today not so easy to forget, but should we be outraged if something that could happen every day in Afghanistan comes to our doorsteps?

Exactly what states are we at "war" with, in your opinion?

 

[Brainaddict]

Which nation you are referring to here?

Where and when was this 'war' declared?

The UK's involvement in this war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Actually, what is the legal status of killing in a war when it hasn't been declared as a war?

 

[JimW]

Does this apply to taliban/al qaeda type militias in Afghanistan too? Are they all considered to be committing acts of war or acts of murder? I suspect a court would reasonably have to consider it war even though they technically have no blessing from a nation to do what they are doing.

Discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant Previously they'd have been considered 'unlawful combatants' but that changed during the War on Terror.

 

[where to]

He didn't say we were at war with a state.

Edit: to editor.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Exactly what states are we at "war" with, in your opinion?

I think that's the wrong question, tbh. It's not a question of the states 'we' are at war with, more a question of the states 'we' are at war in.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not necessarily. I can imagine such a scenario might have occurred between soldiers in WWII

In this case however I don't believe all the participants were soldiers of countries that are officially at war with each other.

there was no declaration of war on argentina in 1982. does this make those who killed argentine conscripts murderers?

 

[Brainaddict]

Yes, if they wanted to. No, if they didn't want to. Because they would be making a judgement as to the legitimacy of power.

Legitimate power monopolises legal violence - so who is the legitimate power needs to be judged before any court can judge anything.

Well okay, I know what you mean. But for a moment lets pretend that the 'objectivity' of law in liberal democracy is a real thing. I mean it's obvious these guys will be locked up for murder until they are old men. But if the objectivity of law were real, would that be the right result?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually, what is the legal status of killing in a war when it hasn't been declared as a war?

This is exactly the point that was disputed by Bobby Sands. If the govt that runs the legal process does not recognise the war, the killing is not a war killing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well okay, I know what you mean. But for a moment lets pretend that the 'objectivity' of law in liberal democracy is a real thing. I mean it's obvious these guys will be locked up for murder until they are old men. But if the objectivity of law were real, would that be the right result?

why should law be objective?

 

[chilango]

Do states actually bother "declaring war" any more? Does anyone know of recent "declarations of war" that actually led to, or involved armed conflict?

 

[Belushi]

IIRC Britain hasn't actually declared war against anyone since 1939, though we've managed to get a hell of a lot of killing in while not being at war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But for a moment lets pretend that the 'objectivity' of law in liberal democracy is a real thing.

It isn't. Identifying legitimate power isn't an objective process - even a liberal democracy in the end declares itself to be legitimate.

 

[Brainaddict]

Do states actually bother "declaring war" any more? Does anyone know of recent "declarations of war" that actually led to, or involved armed conflict?

Was it done in Iraq maybe? But I'm pretty sure it wasn't done in Afghanistan. Yet presumably the rules of war apply to British soldiers there. I.e. They are not committing murder every time they kill someone.

 

[Pickman's model]

IIRC Britain hasn't actually declared war against anyone since 1939, though we've managed to get a hell of a lot of killing in while not being at war.

not even japan? or thailand? or romania, hungary, finland, italy or bulgaria?

 

[butchersapron]

Bizarre thread.