Legal Guerrilla Warfare

For educational purposes only, don't use the information listed below for any illegal acts, kiddies.



Guerrilla warfare per se is not illegal under IHL, but guerrillas must follow the same laws that apply to all regular armed forces.

Like all fighters, guerrillas have different rights depending upon whether the armed conflict is international or internal. Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, a person fighting in irregular forces, often the kind of fighter we today would regard as a guerrilla, is considered a lawful combatant in an international armed conflict provided that he fights under certain specified conditions. The importance of being a lawful combatant is twofold. First, if captured by opposing international forces (not by his government), he may not be prosecuted or punished for taking part in combat. Second, he must be treated as a prisoner of war under applicable international rules.

In order to be granted the privilege of being a lawful combatant, the fighter must, however, observe four rules:

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

2. Wear a distinctive sign or article of clothing visible at a distance in order to indicate that he is a combatant and a potential target who may lawfully be attacked by opposing forces; this provision is for the protection of noncombatant civilians.

3. Carry his weapon openly to indicate his combatant status and to distinguish fighters from the civilian population.

4. Observe the laws of war.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions attempted to take into account the realities of guerrilla warfare, in particular the routine practice of concealment among the general population. In a controversial rule, the protocol requires only that a guerrilla combatant in an international armed conflict carry his arms openly just before an attack. The United States has, for a variety of reasons, not ratified the protocol. In this particular instance, the United States believes it represents a step backward in the protection of civilians since it increases the legal ability of guerrilla fighters to expose civilians to greater risk.

Guerrillas in internal armed conflicts are covered by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and more controversially, by Additional Protocol II of 1977, which has not received wide acceptance. To qualify as combatants under Common Article 3, guerrillas must meet the requirements under customary law, chiefly to conduct themselves with the discipline necessary to show that they adhere to the laws of war. Thus, insurgents must give humane treatment to captured civilians and government soldiers. Insurgents, too, can punish their detainees only after giving them fair trials.

Even if they observe all the rules, guerrillas, in internal conflicts, benefit only from a very limited combatant’s privilege. They are fully liable, if captured by their government, to be tried for rebellion, sedition, and for acts, undertaken as guerrillas, such as murder or destruction of property. If a country’s domestic law permits, they may be executed provided they are tried and sentenced “by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”






In a Guerrilla movement, it would be favorable for the guerrillas to follow international law, even if they are opposed to law, to gain the support of the people, which is step one of the classic guerrilla model.
WERE anarchists to form a guerrilla network, how do you think they should follow international law?

Beats me.

KenCat wrote:

For educational purposes only, don't use the information listed below for any illegal acts, kiddies.



Guerrilla warfare per se is not illegal under IHL, but guerrillas must follow the same laws that apply to all regular armed forces.

Like all fighters, guerrillas have different rights depending upon whether the armed conflict is international or internal. Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, a person fighting in irregular forces, often the kind of fighter we today would regard as a guerrilla, is considered a lawful combatant in an international armed conflict provided that he fights under certain specified conditions. The importance of being a lawful combatant is twofold. First, if captured by opposing international forces (not by his government), he may not be prosecuted or punished for taking part in combat. Second, he must be treated as a prisoner of war under applicable international rules.

In order to be granted the privilege of being a lawful combatant, the fighter must, however, observe four rules:

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

2. Wear a distinctive sign or article of clothing visible at a distance in order to indicate that he is a combatant and a potential target who may lawfully be attacked by opposing forces; this provision is for the protection of noncombatant civilians.

3. Carry his weapon openly to indicate his combatant status and to distinguish fighters from the civilian population.

4. Observe the laws of war.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions attempted to take into account the realities of guerrilla warfare, in particular the routine practice of concealment among the general population. In a controversial rule, the protocol requires only that a guerrilla combatant in an international armed conflict carry his arms openly just before an attack. The United States has, for a variety of reasons, not ratified the protocol. In this particular instance, the United States believes it represents a step backward in the protection of civilians since it increases the legal ability of guerrilla fighters to expose civilians to greater risk.

Guerrillas in internal armed conflicts are covered by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and more controversially, by Additional Protocol II of 1977, which has not received wide acceptance. To qualify as combatants under Common Article 3, guerrillas must meet the requirements under customary law, chiefly to conduct themselves with the discipline necessary to show that they adhere to the laws of war. Thus, insurgents must give humane treatment to captured civilians and government soldiers. Insurgents, too, can punish their detainees only after giving them fair trials.

Even if they observe all the rules, guerrillas, in internal conflicts, benefit only from a very limited combatant’s privilege. They are fully liable, if captured by their government, to be tried for rebellion, sedition, and for acts, undertaken as guerrillas, such as murder or destruction of property. If a country’s domestic law permits, they may be executed provided they are tried and sentenced “by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”






In a Guerrilla movement, it would be favorable for the guerrillas to follow international law, even if they are opposed to law, to gain the support of the people, which is step one of the classic guerrilla model.
WERE anarchists to form a guerrilla network, how do you think they should follow international law?

The government...allows this?

yes, in the same sense that they allow you to kill someone - if you caught, you face their consequences lol

you'll be tried for treason etc. if caught by the government ^_^

Rename wrote:

The government...allows this?

Although I don't believe in government, a "good" government SHOULD allow it.
In fact, the founding fathers put it in the CONSTITUTION in case the government was hijacked by monarchs, oligarchs, etc.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent* of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive* of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish* it.


The Constitution states its right to bear arms for this case (and a few others).



*I never consented!
*The government is distructive!
*I want to abolish it!

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

The government...allows this?

Although I don't believe in government, a "good" government SHOULD allow it.
In fact, the founding fathers put it in the CONSTITUTION in case the government was hijacked by monarchs, oligarchs, etc.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent* of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive* of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish* it.

--Declaration of Independence

The Constitution states its right to bear arms for this case (and a few others).



*I never consented!
*The government is distructive!
*I want to abolish it!

but this idea is all on depending if the U.S. government RESPECT OUR RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION....and they do not - now Police can pat you down if he suspect you have a gun for no reason

[quote="Killuminati"]

KenCat wrote:

but this idea is all on depending if the U.S. government RESPECT OUR RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION....and they do not - now Police can pat you down if he suspect you have a gun for no reason

True, but we would gain popularity of the people which is THE key in guerrilla warfare.

Fuck the laws.. If we get caught we swallow a cyanide capsule and die.

chris wrote:

Fuck the laws.. If we get caught we swallow a cyanide capsule and die.

wooo u might as well have a bomb on ur chest if your gonna do that...

Quote :

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

Id think an Anarchist militia would be democratic - devoid of rank.

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

Id think an Anarchist militia would be democratic - devoid of rank.

I noticed that too. We obviously wouldn't have a general, though we definitely would have "structure of command and discipline".

KenCat wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

Id think an Anarchist militia would be democratic - devoid of rank.

I noticed that too. We obviously wouldn't have a general, though we definitely would have "structure of command and discipline".

we just need a group like the weathermen pissed off mother fuckas wanting a change woo!



ARE YOU READY FOR THIS GOVERNMENT?

KenCat wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

Id think an Anarchist militia would be democratic - devoid of rank.

I noticed that too. We obviously wouldn't have a general, though we definitely would have "structure of command and discipline".

I think all decisions would be made on a democratic basis - whatever the situation calls for. Members ''as Anarchists'' would be expected to show self discipline. I reject the need for a hierarchical command structure, it goes against our principals.

Killuminati - cool pic

Inkus2000 wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war.

Id think an Anarchist militia would be democratic - devoid of rank.

I noticed that too. We obviously wouldn't have a general, though we definitely would have "structure of command and discipline".

I think all decisions would be made on a democratic basis - whatever the situation calls for. Members ''as Anarchists'' would be expected to show self discipline. I reject the need for a hierarchical command structure, it goes against our principals.

Killuminati - cool pic

Although not technically in the Weather Underground, I believe the man on the right is one of my heroes, Abbie.
Fuck being politically correct, fuck this "for educational purposes only" bullshit, I will dedicate my life to the revolution.

Quote :

Although not technically in the Weather Underground, I believe the man on the right is one of my heroes, Abbie.
Fuck being politically correct, fuck this "for educational purposes only" bullshit, I will dedicate my life to the revolution.

Viva, Viva La Revolucion !

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

Although not technically in the Weather Underground, I believe the man on the right is one of my heroes, Abbie.
Fuck being politically correct, fuck this "for educational purposes only" bullshit, I will dedicate my life to the revolution.

Viva, Viva La Revolucion !

"Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process embedded in the human spirit."

Killuminati wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

Although not technically in the Weather Underground, I believe the man on the right is one of my heroes, Abbie.
Fuck being politically correct, fuck this "for educational purposes only" bullshit, I will dedicate my life to the revolution.

Viva, Viva La Revolucion !

"Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process embedded in the human spirit."

I've heard this quote and it has amazed me how true it is. There comes a time in every person's life where they realize that authority is unjust and it is made into something that is. Of course, this is said to be due to things such as caffeine, video games, "too much freedom" (I head this one).

The older you get while not questioning everything you come by, the harder it is to realize. This is why there are so many revolutionary young people, they haven't been bombarded by authoritarian propaganda as much as the older ones.