War, Occupation, or Police Action?

[frogcycle]

Much has been made of trying to stop using the term war and define it as an Occupation. But an occupation is also something defined by international law, with specific requirements (providing security, basic infrastructure like electricity, etc.) which we are not fulfilling. When we occupied Japan and Germany, we put a military government in place - that is what the so-called Coalition provisional Authority CPA was supposed to be. That occupying force relied on the existing infrastructure for things like electricity, but was RESPONSIBLE to ensure it happened.

The Iraq misadventure ceased to be a war and became an Occupation when bush said so on the carrier, May 2, 2003.

The Occupation ended when "In order to defeat possible insurgent planning, the CPA transferred power to the newly appointed Iraqi Interim Government at 10:26 AM local time on June 28, 2004. The CPA thus disbanded, L. Paul Bremer left Iraq that same day."*

From that moment forward, for over three years, our troops in-country have not had a properly defined mission. They are being used in a variety of ways, some in cooperation with the host country, others not. But what they are doing is police action. They are hunting down criminals and arresting them, finding bombs and defusing them, etc. Some of the criminals may be loosely affiliated with international "terrorist" groups; most are local gangs participating in gang warfare/civil war. They are also building blast walls to protect neighborhoods and other such activities. Aside from that, they spend a lot of time protecting each other. This is neither "war" nor "occupation." It is a violation of the purpose of our military, is completely illegal. It is NOT what was authorized by congress, which was to "use necessary force to disarm Saddam Hussein." That ship sailed a long, long time ago**. Petraeus' tactic of embedding our troops in the neighborhoods in "Forward Operating Bases" in converted shopping malls, schools, and such is analogous to a city police force deciding to get cops on the street. It has had some affect on reducing violence in the neighborhoods where it is done, but it is NOT warfighting and it is NOT "occupation." It is an illegal use of our military.

The Commander-in-Chief started issuing illegal orders the minute the CPA was disbanded. He is now trying to retroactively cover his tracks, by trying to trump up some sort of "pact" between the US and the "sovereign nation" of Iraq. He likens it to South Korea, where we have stationed troops on invitation as a deterrent to invasion by the North. Our big bases in Germany are there because of the NATO pact.

Congress needs to get this through their heads and call him on it. They need not to revoke the authority they gave him, but simply to declare him out of bounds, insist that he comply with existing law, and institute impeachment procedures within 48 hours if he does not immediately issue orders to stop "police actions." That, of course, would be step one in putting an end to this thing.

They also need to quickly ensure he cannot enter into any "mutual defense pact" with any nation without ratification by the congress. If congress has a say-so in signing Kyoto they sure as hell should have a say-so in committing troops for decades.



* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority

**None of the people who voted for THAT meant to enable THIS. One can rant all day about how they "should have known this is what he'd do" but they did not knowingly vote FOR this.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I'd vote for occupation of a sovereign country.

[bdamomma]

2. illegal occupation.

[ewoden]

3. Ooo, ooo better term, much better term!

cluster f_ _ck

[frogcycle]

8. yeh, that's what it really is, but

I am not just playing semantics

It is neither a war nor an occupation by international law. And police action is not within the military's charter. A UN-sanctioned "peacekeeping force" would be, but this ain't that.

The fucker is trying to cover his ass with this "pact" because he knows (must have found a new lawyer once gonzo crashed and burned) that he is exposed as hell. He has been giving illegal orders to the military, by both US and international law. Petraeus alluded to it when he said he'd have to consult his lawyer if ordered to do something Congress had not authorized. I think a bunch of people in the WH looked at each other when he said that and said "holy shit!'

[uppityperson]

4. Occupation still works,including puppet gvt.

"But what they are doing is police action." I would rephrase as "what they are in theory supposedly theoretically doing". I agree it is illegal, and a violation of the purpose of our military and not what they THOUGHT they voted for.

I use "Occupation" to denote the misuse of our military, perhaps need to amend it "illegal occupation" since the military IS occupying Iraq, even though they are not providing security, etc like you say. When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, did they fulfill the "requirements" "But an occupation is also something defined by international law, with specific requirements (providing security, basic infrastructure like electricity, etc.)"? Though the USA may not be Occupying according the this law (do you have a link to it or should I wiki?), they still are occupying the country.


I wiki'd and found these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_occupation

(1) 351. Military Occupation Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. (HR, art. 42.)

(2) 353. Subjugation or Conquest Distinguished Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional. On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies a transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally effected by a treaty of peace. When sovereignty passes, belligerent occupation, as such, of course ceases, although the territory may and usually does, for a period at least, continue to be governed through military agencies.

(3) 355. Occupation as Question of Fact Military occupation is a question of fact. It presupposes a hostile invasion, resisted or unresisted, as a result of which the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, and that the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government in the territory invaded.

(4)358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress. (See GC, art. 47; par. 365 herein.)

(5)359. Oath of Allegiance Forbidden It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. (HR, art. 45.)

(6)362. Necessity for Military Government Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. The necessity for such government arises from the failure or inability of the legitimate government to exercise its functions on account of the military occupation, or the undesirability of allowing it to do so.

(7) 363. Duty to Restore and Maintain Public Order The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. (HR, art. 43.)

(8) 367. Functions of Government a. Paramount Authority of Occupant. The functions of the hostile government--whether of a general, provincial, or local character--continue only to the extent they are sanctioned by the occupant.

b. Functions of Local Government. The occupant may, while retaining its paramount authority, permit the government of the country to perform some or all of its normal functions. It may, for example, call upon the local authorities to administer designated rear areas, subject to the guidance and direction of the occupying power. Such action is consistent with the status of occupation, so long as there exists the firm possession and the purpose to maintain paramount authority.

(9)368. Nature of Government It is immaterial whether the government over an enemy's territory consists in a military or civil or mixed administration. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. It is a government imposed by force, and the legality of its acts is determined by the law of war.

(10) 370. Laws in Force In restoring public order and safety, the occupant will continue in force the ordinary civil and penal (criminal) laws of the occupied territory except to the extent it may be authorized by Article 64, GC (par 369), and Article 43, HR (par. 363), to alter, suspend, or repeal such laws (see also HR art. 23 (h); par. 372 herein; and GC, art. 51; par. 418 herein). These laws will be administered by the local officials as far as practicable. Crimes not of a military nature and not affecting the occupant's security are normally left to the jurisdiction of the local courts.

(11) 371. Nature of Laws Suspended or Repealed The occupant may alter, repeal, or suspend laws of the following types: a. Legislation constituting a threat to its security, such as laws relating to recruitment and the bearing of arms. b. Legislation dealing with political process, such as laws regarding the rights of suffrage and of assembly. c. Legislation the enforcement of which would be inconsistent with the duties of the occupant, such as laws establishing racial discrimination.

(12) 374. Immunity of Occupation Personnel From Local Law Military and civilian personnel of the occupying forces and occupation administration and persons accompanying them are not subject to the local law or to the jurisdiction of the local courts of the occupied territory unless expressly made subject thereto by a competent officer of the occupying forces or occupation administration. The occupant should see to it that an appropriate system of substantive law applies to such persons and that tribunals are in existence to deal with civil litigation to which they are parties and with offenses committed by them.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

[frogcycle]

6. thanks for digging up the definitions and laws

I agree that "illegal occupation" is a necessary qualifier if it is indeed to be called an occupation. But it does not quite make the point. That sounds like it is an Occupation without legal basis, inviting argument over whether we have a right to occupy. We did invade and take out the then-sovereign government, and that is a legal basis for establishing an Occupation (assuming the invasion were legal). But our execution of the Occupation violated the laws defining HOW an Occupation is to be conducted. And when they transferred sovereignty and the CPA packed up and left, the Occupation ended, whether legal or not. So it was an illegally-executed occupation (of dubious justification). And now it is a nothing. It is basically outlaw activity. Yes, they are "occupying" as in "being inside of" but they are not executing an Occupation by the law. The Documentary "No End in Sight" points out the many ways in which they never even tried to do so.

I think bush's introduction of this "pact" that the Iraqi Government supposedly asked for is because they realized belatedly just how exposed they are to prosecution for violation of international law. He is trying frantically to fast-forward from the day before invasion to declaring a "pact" with a sovereign state and brush the last six years under the rug.

The question that was put to Petraeus in the hearings regarding what would he do if ordered by the CinC to do something not authorized by congress was telling. His response was "I don't mean to be flip, but what I would do is consult my attorney."

[frogcycle]

7. "Occupation" is military government

The CPA could have been passed off as that - it was under the DoD, but headed by a civilian (bush's crony Bremer). But it disbanded.

"Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_government

End of Military Government

RULE: Military Government continues until legally supplanted.

This is explained as follows. For the situation where no territorial cession is involved, the military government of the principal occupying power will end with the coming into force of the peace settlement.

Example: (1) Japan after WWII. Japan regained its sovereignty with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952. In other words, a civil government for Japan was in place and functioning as of this date.

In the situation of a territorial cession, there must be a formal peace treaty. However, the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty.

Example: (1) Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War. Military government continued in Puerto Rico past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended on May 1, 1900 with the beginning of Puerto Rico's civil government.
Example: (2) Cuba after the Spanish-American War. Military government continued in Cuba past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended on May 20, 1902 with the beginning of the Republic of Cuba's civil government.

Hence, at the most basic level, the terminology of "legally supplanted" is interpreted to mean "legally supplanted by a civil government fully recognized by the national (or "federal") government of the principal occupying power."

It stopped being a War OR an Occupation and thus became both violation of our laws by misuse of our military and violation of international law when the CPA disbanded. bush could have gone back to congress and requested authority to provide a "peacekeeping force" but he didn't. And the UN didn't authorize one.

His excuse is the mythical "global War on Terror" which he says gives him "wartime authority" to do whatever the hell he wants with our military. Well, that needs to be challenged in court and get in front of the SCOTUS, because the GWOT is bogus as hell. Might as well declare war on rudeness, or disgruntlement.

[kineneb]

5. occupation of future colony

following PNAC ideal of the whole ME as an American "protectorate". For reference, see all the "temporary" bases being built.

Things don't seem to be working quite according to plan...

[Bucky]

9. Simply occupation. "Illegal" and "future colony" are just spin.

Not as a big a spin as "war on terror" of course. But spin.

[frogcycle]

10. "occupation" is spin too

just being there kicking doors down is not "Occupation." Occupation has legal definition. It is outlaw activity. It should put the CinC in prison for life.