01-06-2003 00:49									#1
	If I went to Iraq during the "war" and shot a bunch of Iraqi soldiers... Increase Your PM Length

Without being in the U.S. military, just a citizen-would I be commiting any crime, by U.S. law?

	01-06-2003 00:57									#2
	Support Apolyton

Yes.

Of course, how you would get over there at all, let alone with weaponry, would be an interesting problem to surmount.

	01-06-2003 00:58									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Yes. Of course, how you would get over there at all, let alone with weaponry, would be an interesting problem to surmount.

What crime?

Its a hypothetical..... just pretend I have my own invisible plane, and am armed to the teeth

	01-06-2003 01:03									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Where should I start?

Sanctions make it illegal to even go there without a special permit from the US government - available to authorized journalists, humanitarian workers in recognized organizations, and a few other cases.

Being a mercenary (even if you do if for "fun" you're not a member of the regular armed forces of the US) violates several Federal statutes

The military (CentCom) has jurisdiction over entry into operational zones under their jurisdiction, so the MP's would bust and remove your ass. One way or another.

Since you have no legal right to be there, and you're not a lawful combatant, any killing you do is punishable as murder, etc.

The list goes on...

	01-06-2003 01:22									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

And it wouldn't be some itty-bitty punishment like lethal injection.

	01-06-2003 01:43									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Vesayen, you can claim the partisan statute only if you act on your national soil.

	01-06-2003 06:28									#7
	Remove this text

That's odd, because during the war in Iraq there was a lot of talk here about something similar, although kind of the reversed situation.

Several scholars and commentators brought forward the point that if Iraqi nationals here in Denmark were to blow up say, the Foreign Ministry, it wouldn't be terrorism, but a legitimate act of war on their part, since Denmark was (a small) participant in the armed coalition.

Stirred up a bit of debate about what would constitute legitimate targets for them - if radical immigrants would have actually had the motivation and capability.

	01-06-2003 06:32									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Winston Several scholars and commentators brought forward the point that if Iraqi nationals here in Denmark were to blow up say, the Foreign Ministry, it wouldn't be terrorism, but a legitimate act of war on their part,

Surely they meant the Defense Ministry.

	01-06-2003 06:34									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

They'd have to do the proper stuff to be combatants, though - the worn marking distinguishable at a distance, organized command structure, and open carrying of arms, but then that would apply to any nationals of a combatant power.

	01-06-2003 06:36									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Defense and Foreign Ministries, Royal Family, Parliament, public infrastructure were among the institutions mentioned as "legitimate".

No mention during the debate of potential Iraqis retaliating here in Denmark having to wear distinct markings/uniforms.

It was kind of a pseudo debate, but interesting nonetheless that the consensus seemed to be that they could actually "get away" with what would normally be considered terrorism - due to the state of war between the two nations.

Last edited by Winston on 01-06-2003 at 06:41

	01-06-2003 07:32									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Winston No mention during the debate of potential Iraqis retaliating here in Denmark having to wear distinct markings/uniforms.

To qualify for lawful combatant status under the Geneva Convention, they'd have to meet the Article 4 (IIRC) criteria for lawful irregular forces.

quote: It was kind of a pseudo debate, but interesting nonetheless that the consensus seemed to be that they could actually "get away" with what would normally be considered terrorism - due to the state of war between the two nations.

It's really a two part test - if they're both lawful combatants, and adhere to the laws and customs of land warfare, then they're not terrorists, no. If they violate either of those two standards, then they're terrorists, saboteurs, whatever you find convenient to call them, but they're essentially yours to dispose of in whatever manner you find most convenient.

	01-06-2003 07:35									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well since you bring it up, Iraqi forces bent the Hell out of the rules of war.
What do you know ? A whole fresh reason why the ousting was good.
The Iraqi army, as a whole, were conductucting terrrorist activities.

	02-06-2003 11:06									#13
	Tired of ads?

I've often thought about going to Afghanistan and killing Osama Bin Ladin

lack of funds is the only thing stopping me. oh and rational thought