Tim Worstall

Hunh?

Picking over some commentary on the Lancet paper on deaths in Iraq (trying to forget my own mistakes in this field, of course) I came across this at Apostate Windbag:

In any case, under international law,
the inhabitants of an occupied country have the right to resist with
arms. The insurgents when they attack Coalition forces are entirely
within their rights to do so, thus while killing insurgents is
obviously not a crime on the scale of the killing of civilians, it
remains illegal when the occupiers kill them in the course of their
resisting the occupation (although, arguably, not when the insurgents
are off blowing up polling booths and Christian shopkeepers that sell
Jack Daniels).

Hunh? Can anyone explain this to me? Is it really illegal for, say, the US Marines to shoot at someone (with the intent to kill) who is shooting at them?

In

6 responses

  1. Charles Avatar
    Charles

    I browsed the report after seeing the refer to it as proof that the US killed 100K Iraqis.
    Its interesting to note that the 100K deaths were extrapolated from (correct me if I’m wrong) 20-24 deaths from all causes (including sickness, etc.) that were anecdotally reported forthe most part. I think there were 14 violent deaths (including murder, etc.).
    I’m obviously no genius, but its hard for me to grasp the methodology that took just over a dozen deaths from violent causes and turned that into 100K killed by USA. Maybe its just me…

    Reply
  2. Jane Avatar
    Jane

    Doesn’t seem right at all.

    Reply
  3. Pat Curley Avatar
    Pat Curley

    Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Instead of the insurgents in Iraq, make it the Resistance in France during WWII, and you’ll see how the law could have come into being. Just goes to show you that the law is indeed, an ass. And why President Bush is wise to steer away from the ICC.
    Of course, it’s a pretty fatheaded claim for Victor S. to make because it invites us to say “Oh, they’re counting insurgents in the 100,000? No big deal then.”

    Reply
  4. Jackalope Avatar
    Jackalope

    Somehow, I don’t think they’d extend the same privilege to Englishmen, burglars, and their own homes.

    Reply
  5. Dumbo_the_Elephant Avatar
    Dumbo_the_Elephant

    Has the intelligence of the English educated class really declined that much?

    Reply
  6. Don Meaker Avatar
    Don Meaker

    The insurgents have the right to resist, but must follow the law of war as they do so. This means they must carry arms openly, have a chain of command (which disciplines people who break the rules), avoid injury to non-combatants, have a uniform identifiable from a distance, and treat captured foes with humanity, following the Geneva convention. If they do this, they have the right, if captured, to be treated as Prisoners of War, that is they must be kept safe, sped to the rear, given food, water, and medicine, and must not be tortured or executed while in the custody of the occupying power.
    Before they are captured, since they are appealing to the sword, then they may be shot or killed as they resist.
    If they do not obey the laws of war stated briefly above, then they forfeit any right to humane consideration, and are subject to summary execution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading