Terrorism is a War Crime, too.

by Robert J. Romano

May 15th, 2004

"The League of Nations, formed at Versailles in 1919, failed to curb powerful aggressors or to protect its weaker members from attack.  It was never a well-balanced, truly supra-national league, and proved itself unfitted to deal with economic problems or to enforce its decisions." (Langer, 1156) The danger for any international system is the inability for it to enforce justice; the path of inaction bears many costs.  Though the United Nations, and in extension, the international system of states in the post-WWII era, appears to have lasted longer than its predecessor, much of the inherent stability for any system is contingent upon there being respect of the law of nations.  Without it, what all international systems will go through is repudiation of the very principles it is meant to uphold.  Acts of aggression, and acts of war crimes, are usually the most egregious types of felonies against the law of nations.  The examples of Hitler's Germany and the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere perpetrated offensive wars, in which several war crimes were committed, which after the defeat of the Axis powers, many peoples were all at once stating unequivocally,  "Never again."
        Not all have said that, but the principle of the rule of law does not mean that simply all crimes are to be condemned by some body, it means that such decisions to remove those threats are enforced by a body of justice.  Constitutions protecting rights mean quite little if they are not enforced by sovereign states.  What took place prior to and during WWII was the repudiation of international norms and values, and what follows from such repudiation, in an international system, is perpetual anarchy.  However, if crimes are to be punished, and in an international system of sovereign states, only states may enforce international decisions by their own powers, then crimes contrary to the values expressed unanimously by the world ought to be punished.  Crime does not destroy the body of justice, so long as due process takes place, and crimes are met with justice.
        Keep in mind, at a time of war, justice is often brought to our enemies.  There are not any trials which take place on the battlefield, no prosecution per se, no legal defense.  Battles in a just war are won in accordance with the values of all states who would seek to defend themselves.  War is dangerous, and one way for sovereign states to deal with external threats is to remove them with military means, however, that is not the only way to deal with the threats of the battlefield.  Once enemies are captured, they are subject to the rule of law.  They are interrogated often for battlefield intelligence, but they ought to be treated humanely.  If not, personnel responsible for crimes ought to be punished under all circumstances in which criminal activities take place.  The best means of prosecuting criminals is by sovereign states and therefore, states punish their own citizens.
        For such reasons, perhaps, Hussein's regime survivors are to be prosecuted by the body of the Iraqi people.  For such reasons, in general, there are military codes of justice, and perhaps the greatest example of military justice is the American system.  According to the Department of Defense, there are some 3,000 court martials in a given year for Americans.  If men and women in uniform act contrary to the law they are supposed to be prosecuted.  God forbid any of our personnel commit crimes, but there should be no doubt that justice awaits criminals when acts contrary to the law are perpetrated.
        Our enemies should also know that justice awaits them.  One tactic the enemy will attempt to utilize is to evade justice, but this much is certain, crimes committed against our own will be punished, and justice will be brought to our enemies.  Our brave military recently captured Saddam Hussein, and his strategy was to hide in a hole.  However, there is no hole deep enough to hide the shame of our enemies, whom often do not share the world's conception of justice that was born out of the post-WWII generation, and the murder of innocents, of our own, will always be answered.  Hussein now awaits justice.  His acts of transgression against the Iraqi people will occur by their powers, and all acts of terror will not go unpunished, wherever they are committed.
        Meeting the transnational danger of terrorism is to meet the latest challenge to our own international system of states, a threat which is directly posed against our values of justice, and human rights.  These acts of terror are indeed war crimes.  There is no justification for acts which target civilians, such as all-too-real films of murder which demonstrate the cruelty of our enemy, as well as the use of bombs, planes as missiles, and yes, weapons of mass destruction.
        We do not celebrate war crimes, we confront them, and we punish them.  To the best of our ability, we will confront the danger of terrorism, and preempt it.  
        Just as we punish our own citizens when crimes are committed, we shall punish the enemy for its unjust acts.  For the law of nations to apply, it must be administered regardless of nationality, or lack thereof.  The greatest asset which terrorists possess is the inherent lack of accountability to any justice, a statelessness which offers amnesty for the cruelest of acts.  It is up to all states to confront the challenge, to pursue these war criminals whose chosen tactic is the elimination of civilian life.  The enemy is often brutal, and acts without compunction nor any accountability to justice.  
        Terrorism threatens all nation-states, and we all face this danger together.  Our resolve to stand by principles of justice will not be shaken.  

Bibliography: Langer, William L.  An Encyclopedia of World History.  Houghton Mifflin Company.  Boston.  1968.