Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • June 9, 2022 12:16 PM

@ All,

Consider,

“The principle of distinction between the two roles is a critical cornerstone of international humanitarian law­”

The principle was ment to protect the “Women, children, old and infirm” from the rather unplesant excesses of soldiers where rape & plunder were the least of it.

Any soldier who attacks a civilian population as an aggressor is automatically a “War Criminal” it’s not something that is realy open to debate.

As such any person is alowed by legal principle to defend themselves and their property from “criminals” the fact they wear “colours” or are “under flag” is irrelivant to this. Under criminal and civil law.

However any person bearing “colours” or “under flag” that acts in a criminal way “under orders” automatically makes not just himself a “war criminal” but “their commander and all the way up the chain of command” including the politicians.

As far as I’m aware the only exception was the “God Head” or what we now call the “Sovereign” or “Head of State” as somebody has to be able to formally order a surender.

The aftermath of WWII saw the US military lawyers push through the “illegal orders”(Europe) and “Culpability of a God Head”(Japan). But in more recentcent times the US pushed through the “Culpability of a head of state”(Iraq) as well as producing legislation that basicalky says “No US citizen” can be detained as a war criminal, in fact they make it an “primary act of war” in it’s oen right as they claim the right to liberate any such US Citizen with overwhelming military force.

To say the centries old “laws of war” apply has not been true since VE day and it’s getting worse year by year, for the typical ill thought out “short term political gain” US polititians and legislators appear to think is of the utmost importance…

Clive Robinson • June 9, 2022 6:41 PM

@ David Leppik, ALL,

Part 2,

In most jurisdictions you have a right to defend yourself if you are attacked. It’s a common law right going back centuries long long before any laws on war.

Even if you have been lawfully arrested, you are presumed “innocent” and thus still have the same lawful right of self defence for yourself, your loved ones and your property. As long as you have sufficient reason to believe your life or that of your loved ones are at risk you can use reasonable force to defend yourself your loved ones and even property.

What constitutes “reasonable” is open to debate by over payed lawyers siting in comfort “sunday evening quarterbacking” with ludicrous “what aboutism” presented as “what you should be doing”[1].

The simple fact is though if somebody aproaches you or your loved ones or property in a hostile manner it does not matter if they are in a uniform or not your life is potentially in danger.

From a practical perspective you have to assume a hostile aproach means they mean to cause harm. To not assume that is a level of naivety that will get you hurt if not killed. Many learn this first hand when quite youbg by the behaviour of school bullies.

As you can not see into the future you can not know what the harm is they intend or how much they will escalate it, thus you should consider the likelyhood that you will be killed by design or consequence of the intended harm.

So realistically you have only three practical choices,

1, Passively alow yourself to be harmed / killed.
2, Take flight / run away and escape if you can.
3, Protect yourself as best you can in any practical way you can.

Clive Robinson • June 9, 2022 7:23 PM

@ David Leppik, ALL,

Part 4,

Therefore the invading terrorists are not entitled to any protection under the laws of war, nor are they exempt from sanctions under criminal law of the Sovereign State they have illegaly and unlawfully invaded. Technically they have no lawfull right to be there, so they are trespassing to carry out criminal acts, which at the very least makes them burglars…

Thus any Ukranian reporting the movment of the invading criminal terrorists to the Ukranian Civil Authorities is actually doing what the law not just alows then to do, but actually requires them to do, and for which the lawful Ukranian Civil Authorities ie the Ukranian Government have put in place systems to do so quickly and efficiently. This is in no way carrying out irregular combat, or espionage etc.

What the legitimate civilian authorities chose to do with the information is the “Governments choice” not that of the individual citizen behaving lawfully as required (same as taxes, you as an individual have a legal duty to pay them, but you have no personal choice on how they are then spent).

Any other view point is pandering to the invading criminal terrorists and attempting to legitimize or appease them, which is stupid because it just gives the invading criminal terrorists faux legitimacy they have no entitlement to.

Clive Robinson • June 9, 2022 7:44 PM

@ David Leppik, ALL,

Part 6b,

If those appeasers had not fled, or died, after the return to civil authority they were tried for their actions. If convicted and most were, in many cases they were given the same sanction a murderer would be.

Clive Robinson • June 9, 2022 7:50 PM

@ David Leppik, ALL,

Part 7,

[1] Much of it is like arguing the way you should stop a mad axeman choping down your front door is to take of all your clothes, climb up on the roof with a pair of ski’s and a carnation stuffed up your nose and ski down the roof singing “Day-O the banana boat song”… The argument being that the mad axeman will be so mesmerized by your suddenly found abilities that they will put the axe down and wander off into the sunset with blue birds chirping “wonderfull world” all around them… You need to remember that all their flights of Looneyness puts miles on their clock, thus money in their bank account.

[2] One of the more recent cases comming on the heels of the George Floyed killer Conviction is that of Andrew Brown. It needs to be noted that no guns, or knives or any other weapons were found on Mr Brown or in his vehicle. Nor were any illigal drugs found in him, on him, in his cars or homes. Contrary to wild “official” claims no officers were hurt and most did not fire their weapons. Unfortunatly the Sherif and his close working partner District Attorney Andrew Womble went to inordinate efforts to not just withhold information, but make unproven accusations to darken the victims name. Eventually to prevent a law suit that would have forced the information they were trying to hide into the open they payed 3million into the victims estate. Unsurprisingly none of the shooters will face prosecution or civil proceadings.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9516711/Moment-large-group-cops-surround-Andrew-Browns-car-North-Carolina-police-shooting.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57160926

Clive Robinson • June 11, 2022 10:39 AM

@ Denton Scratch,

That’s a principle in common law; which is cool, if you happen to be in a jurisdiction under common law. But relying on rule-of-law in a warzone seems rather hubistic.

Either we live by the rule of law, or we are not a society[1].

Thus the problem in any society is two fold,

1, Those who make the laws.
2, Those who chose not to live by the laws.

If the rules reflect the mores of society in general in a non prejudicial way then they in effect become “self evident truths” by which all live and coexist in a “rising tide lifts all boats” way and society moves forwards.

It is those that chose not to live by the rules, or use rules to be prejudicial to others that are in effect the real cause of problems.

This does not mean a society where all agree or all have the same beliefs, it just requires a balance between,

“Rights of the individual -v- Responsability to society”

Where imbalance occures as it always will, it requires impartial adjudication which is what gave rise to councils and juries of your peers, and both parties to abide by the decisions.

Unfortunately this “vests power” in a limited number of individuals and this attracts certain disfunctional personality types. Those that believe that they are somehow “entitled” above others.

We have yet to find a way to resolve the issue which history has amply demonstrated leads to undesirable laws that neither reflect the mores of society or are non prejudicial.

Conflict, war, and destruction are the concequences of this issue, so seeking a solution is important to the continued existance of mankind.

Anyone who can think logically and consider the future, knows that there is no benifit in wars of agression. However they also know that reason and logic will not cause the “self entitled” to change their behaviours… So a standing army is needed to deter or stop an agressive beligerant.

The problem with having an army is that someone views them like toys, so have to play with them…

It is the nature of “force multipliers” that people will use them, even though those in an agressive army know what they are doing is wrong, their stark choice is do as ordered even if the orders are illegal or be executed for mutiny.

I suspect that those observing current events on the eastern boarders of Europe are starting to realise, what the issues are but can see no way to stop things.

One age old rule of war was not to kill the opposing leader as only they could enforce a surrender on their forces and people. The problem that arises from that however is what do you do about a leader who will not surrender as they have some stupid notion of destiny and their name living on after death…

You have to then ask what sort of leader they are, and the words despot or tyrant come easily to the tongue. But you have to think deeper, that is how they establish their power base and control it.

I’ve been through this before on this blog, and you can see one way in the way the agressor army treats it’s soldiers. A concequence of this is the number of senior commanders being killed.

At some point sufficient of the commanders will look at the “Butchers Bill” and realise it’s not just those that they command on the menu but themselves as well. At which point history teaches us that it will result in mutiny be some or all of the commanders against the leader.

However since WWII we have a “fly in the ointment”, Weapons of Mass Destruction specifically designed for use against civilian populations the use of which has been made “turn-key” to the leader…

Leaders with destiny as their guiding force will think nothing about using WMD not just against defenders but their own agressor forces as well… Nor will they give a care about “Mutually Assured Destruction”(MAD).

Thus we have the situation we are in where there are only two solutions as long as the leader lives,

1, Fight the agressor to the point they can nolonger prosecute a war, or maintain their civil society.
2, By superior forces destroy the agressor army supply by destroying their civil society that manufactures the supplies.

Neither option is particularly palatable, both are hellishly destructive. But the second history teaches us causes future troubles as resentment gets handed down the generations of surviving civilians…

There are always idiots who believe war is somehow “glorious”, the truth is they have either never experienced it close up or they are deluded / deranged.

Which closes the circle, and leads to the conclusion that deranged self entitled people should never be alowed into positions of power anywhere. And the only way to stop that is by eliminating positions of power and the hierarchies that create them. To do that citizens have to stop abdicating on their responsabilities to society.

Easy to say, but…

[1] Contrary to what many think living without the rule of law, is not “anarchy” in the way they have been taught to think of it. In fact for most of mankinds social existence there has been no real need for laws. It was only with the concept of property ownership by individuals rather than social group or collective stewardship that caused the proplems. As it was this that led to the prejudicial control of resources as a weapon of terror (look up water wars). And much of the other nonsense that went into “The King Game” of “rule by guard labour”.