Can defensive political violence be justified?

[Andreas Winsnes]

Can the legal rules of self-defence and necessity justify militant operations against oppressive organisations, for example multinational companies which kill people in third world countries?

If these rules actually allow that, should politicians change the rules, so that such operations will never be legal?

I am working on a PhD thesis about those questions and will appreciate your comments, either here in this forum or preferably at this website here

The website is slightly unorthodox and postmodern, so please read the introduction to the forum and especially the article "Perspectivism".

Hope it can provide useful information which can create debates at this military forum also. Thanks!

[kato]

There are no international or even omni-moral "legal rules of self-defence". Any such action would only face the national rules, as should be expected. Ethically you could get at something. Although not the direction you're hinting at of course.

To quote Noam Chomsky:
"Resistance is feasible even for those who are not heroes by nature, and it is an obligation, I believe, for those who fear the consequences and detest the reality of the attempt to impose [...] hegemony"
(yeah, people will know which word i left out there).

Or, if we really want to go at it, Sophie Scholl with "Nothing is so unworthy of a civilised nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct". Food for thought in this regard.

[Grand Danois]

What they (you) propose to do on the website is already considered illegal in my country (Denamrk). It will earn those people a jail sentence and the organization will be shut down.

As the case about "Fighters + Lovers" show, de jure, militant resistance can be considered legal if there is gross oppression and the means are within bounds. Abduction, extortion, attacking civilian infrastructure, drugs trade, racketeering, terrorist bombings, etc. is not considered within bounds. No real or perceived moral legitimacy can justify these methods.

Fighters + Lovers sold T-shirts and sent the profits to FARC. They got shut down by the courts, not because of FARCs militant resistance itself, but due to the methods FARC (and PFLP) employs - the above list.



Supreme Court upholds T-shirt terror convictions
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 15:26 KR News

[The t-shirts in question sold for 170 kroner with 37 kroner being handed over to the groups deemed to be terrorist organisations]

The t-shirts in question sold for 170 kroner with 37 kroner being handed over to the groups deemed to be terrorist organisations
Six members of solidarity organisation ‘Fighters+Lovers’ have been found guilty of supporting terrorism and given suspended sentences

The Supreme Court has found six members of the Fighters+Lovers activist group guilty of supporting terrorism, through the proceeds of T-shirt sales going towards Columbian group FARC and the Palestinian group PFLP.

The case stems from the sale of t-shirts three years ago that included the logos of FARC and PFLP, both of which are listed as terrorist organisations by the EU. Each t-shirt sold for 170 kroner with 37 kroner being forwarded to the two organisations.
In 2007, the t-shirt producers were freed by Copenhagen City Court, which found no reason to label the two groups as terror organisations. The ruling was appealed by the public prosecutor to the High Court which overturned the lower court’s decision.

The High Court sentenced two of the defendants to six months imprisonment, four received suspended sentences and one was released. The defendants appealed their judgement.

In the latest ruling from the Supreme Court today, all six sentences were suspended, with one being reduced from four months to 60 days. The defendants had faced up to 10 years in prison for breaking the so-called terror law.

Ulrik Kohl, who received a six month suspended sentence, said he was very surprised by the judgement.

‘We had a strong case, because the fight for freedom is not terrorism and solidarity should not be a crime,’ said Kohl.

His fellow defendant Katrine Willumsen said that they will appeal the Supreme Court’s ruling to the European Court of Human Rights.

‘I am angry at such an unjust political ruling. We’ve received a sentence for making t-shirts, which is ridiculous, but most of all it is dangerous for democracy and shows that the terror law has completely come apart. There’s still time to change so that our political freedom rights are not undermined,’ said Willumsen.

Fighters+Lovers does not believe that groups should be labelled as terrorists if the are involved in a legitimate struggle against regimes.

Supreme Court upholds T-shirt terror convictions

[kato]

Originally Posted by Grand Danois

What they (you) propose to do on the website is already considered illegal in my country (Denamrk).

Wouldn't be (strictly) illegal in Germany, as long as the training they propose takes place outside the territory of Germany. And the hoops to jump through to bring such a group into jail in Germany would be extreme.
The "F+L" case in Denmark was seen as "stereotypical right-wing conservative policy against rightful freedom fighters" in the German left scene btw.

Originally Posted by Grand Danois

No real or perceived moral legitimacy can justify these methods.

Moral legitimacy is a feeble thing.

"Today, to be "violent" or a "terrorist" is a quality that ennobles any honorable person, because it is an act worthy of a revolutionary engaged in armed struggle"
(Carlos Marighella, 1968)

On a side note, even if i've had some... discourse with modern followers of the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory in Frankfurt (who oddly enough tend to quote Ulrike Meinhof a lot), for some reason i don't like Habermas at all. Too philosophical perhaps. Give me Adorno any day compared to that.

[Andreas Winsnes]

There are no international or even omni-moral "legal rules of self-defence". Any such action would only face the national rules, as should be expected. Ethically you could get at something. Although not the direction you're hinting at of course.

I argue that the legal rules of necessity and self-defence should apply internationally, as they already can do in cases of genocide for example. I also argue that the basic principles of these rules are universal in the sense that all cultures, as far as I know, allow individuals to kill in self-defence, at least in some cases.

What they (you) propose to do on the website is already considered illegal in my country (Denamrk). It will earn those people a jail sentence and the organization will be shut down.

I will not be surprised if that happens, but can you please provide the arguments you think Danish judges probably will use to make such a ban seem justified?

Since F+L sent money to FARC, I agree with the Danish Supreme Court.

Kato and Grand Danois talk about "they", so let me clarify that I am running the LAW website.

[Grand Danois]

Apparently it isn't that difficult herabouts - the Americans have the term "aiding and abetting". Seems to be an analogue.

You're obviously much better versed on German philosophy than I am. Just so you know, I don't have the "credentials" for such a discussion.

My perspective is more practical. They may be right or wrong, I just don't give much for long-winded theoretical arguments on moral when atrocities are systematically committed and people not party to the conflict are eliminated in order to maintain a "power vacuum" (FARC tactics).

Not that I have any particular sympathies towards the Colombian gov either, they're just as brutal.

There is also the issue that in order to gain support, ordinary thugs will claim ideology/religion/you name it, in order to gain outside support from i.e. fringe factions in Western countries...

Also, many, if not most, violent non-state actors degenerate into warlordism or are plain thuggery from the onset.

The real world is a... well a world apart... from Rote Armee Fraktion rationales.

That's just my perspective.

Btw, there was an anthropology thesis discussed in the Danish media about two years on the topic of left wing psychological schemas. It investigated the thematic priorities of the left wing psychology. Of most interest was how high defining the world in offender-victim relationships was on the list. It matters when setting a treshold for militant resistance to people; when it becomes legitimate.

In that light, I was seriously amused when the Unity List (communists) ran a black reaction islamist as candidate for parliament at the last elections. The supposed schematic rationale was that she, as having a palaestinian origin, was a victim of the "evil (right-wing, US supported)" Israelis and a symbol of the victims of the "evil, right-wing, Danish immigrant policies"... Fitted right into priority schema as described above - the offender-victim relationship overruled the reality that her worldview was one of black reaction. Of course, the party was halved at the elections, as most of their voter base saw it for what it was...

[Grand Danois]

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

I will not be surprised if that happens, but can you please provide the arguments you think Danish judges probably will use to make such a ban seem justified?

Since F+L sent money to FARC, I agree with the Danish Supreme Court..

I already summarized the reasons the courts gave: Fighters + Lovers sold T-shirts and sent the profits to FARC. They got shut down by the courts, not because of FARCs militant resistance itself, but due to the methods FARC (and PFLP) employs - the above list.

I'll add that IIRC they got suspended sentences because it was an act of provocation; they didn't have the opportunity to actually send any money, but that's by memory.

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

Kato and Grand Danois talk about "they", so let me clarify that I am running the LAW website.

I assumed that, but wouldn't pin it on you, as I wasn't sure.

[kato]

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

I argue that the legal rules of necessity and self-defence should apply internationally, as they already can do in cases of genocide for example.

Genocide was outlawed by the UN explicitly, not implicitly.

And, as you're applying self-defense to an abstract layer (self-defense against organisations), you should be aware that neither abstract self-defense nor the "right to insurgency with all means" (which some nations do have for certain situations, Germany for example) are universal.

However, there is a universal - UN - law in place governing military-level support for armed groups (and training would count as that) - the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, UN Resolution 44/34. Not everyone has signed it yet, but in those states that have you'll have little chances - you'll be walking a tight line with that.

[P Mac M]

Our organisation Rebellion (Denmark) was created some years ago to defend the right to resistance, also with military means if no other perspective
is accessible.

Our homepage, with Danish texts and international news and articles on present conflicts in Palestine and Colombia is accessible at opror.net.

Sincerely

Patrick Mac Manus
Spokesperson Rebellion (Denmark)

[Grand Danois]

Aha!

We've been monitored by the people who object to being monitored.

[Andreas Winsnes]

Genocide was outlawed by the UN explicitly, not implicitly.

What I was trying to say is that globalization has caused many legal rules to be internationalised, more or less depending on how many countries have ratified them.

Genocide can now warrant humanitarian intervention. But the national laws of self-defence and necessity in the country where the genocide is happening will most likely be against such an intervention, naturally However, since many states believe that borders should not be a hindrance for using violence in self-defence on behalf of the victims of genocide, they have made the classical legal defences universal in this case.

After terrorism became a serious international problem, governments also realised that it was necessary to create international legal rules against it, to protect innocent people against such oppressive organisations.

It was the realisation that self-defence should apply internationally in such cases, which was the rational for going to war against the Taliban. The later, of course, will argue that the rule of non-intervention is more important and that the internationalisation of self-defence rules should be limited.

There are three levels of self-defence. The traditional one is the right to defend yourself if being attacked on the street or in your home by ordinary criminals. In some way or another, formalised or not, this right has always been recognised in all cultures, as far as I know. Then one have the state level where the rules of just war regulates international conflicts between governments. But our societies have become globalised and many non-governmental organisations, for example multinational companies or al-Qaida, have got power to kill people in other countries. Therefore I argue that one should introduce a third level which gives citizens the right to defend their lives against such organisations on the condition that government authorities will or can not help them and that they have tried all non-violent means to solve the conflict peacefully.

P Mac M mentions Rebellion, but this discussion about the internationalisation of legal rules is obviously not about rebellion and revolution. On the contrary! I am arguing that Western democracies like Norway and Denmark got good legal rules already, and that they are so good that they should be applied universally. This is a very conservative approach.

They may be right or wrong, I just don't give much for long-winded theoretical arguments on moral when atrocities are systematically committed and people not party to the conflict are eliminated in order to maintain a "power vacuum" (FARC tactics).

Not that I have any particular sympathies towards the Colombian gov either, they're just as brutal.

I agree completely. LAW is primarily based on common sense, not complicated philosophy, but some individuals like to make things more complicated than they are, or at least seem to be at first glance, and therefore it can be necessary to also argue on their "sophisticated" level. I try to avoid it, however, partly because I am often not wise enough to get their arguments

Also, many, if not most, violent non-state actors degenerate into warlordism or are plain thuggery from the onset.

That is a big problems. Thuggery and ideology is a bad mix. This is why LAW demands that potential activists should be moderate and have an almost impeccable track record. It is so difficult to become an activist in the organisation that it is highly unlikely that anyone will join our training. I don't mind because I am a philosopher and therefore feel that it is pretty interesting enough to keep the whole debate on a purely theoretical level.

But it is not entirely theoretical since the demands mentioned above actually constitute severe criticism of all militant organisations which don't have the same safety standards.

[Falstaff]

Andreas, I'm sorry to say this, but I believe that in your interpretation of the matter you are thoroughly mistaken. Plus your concept is utterly theoretical in nature, which reminds me of my dreadful time doing political work in the students' union and parliament at my university. It is a common flaw among leftist groups and movements to make up concepts that rely on the so called common sense mostly paired with the believe that we were all born with some kind of solidarity. As a wise man once said, the biggest flaw in communism was human nature.

Then one have the state level where the rules of just war regulates international conflicts between governments. But our societies have become globalised and many non-governmental organisations, for example multinational companies or al-Qaida, have got power to kill people in other countries. Therefore I argue that one should introduce a third level which gives citizens the right to defend their lives against such organisations on the condition that government authorities will or can not help them and that they have tried all non-violent means to solve the conflict peacefully.

I will focus on my main point here. You are assuming that people have a "common sense" and a very deeply rooted sense for what is just in this world. But it is a grave mistake to think that what has grown in the western european civilization over centuries, has been paid for with dozens of millions of lives and many many decades of war, applies to all people.
Think about it, through the eyes of Al Quaeda, they are defending the muslim world. They've repeatedly stated that they have the right to defend themselves against the infidels. You want to legalize this?
So who judges what is rightful self-defence? In your concept, it is the citizen. Is he able to do so? In every country with a working government I believe that in case your government doesn't want to help you, there is a good reason.
On the other side of the planet, have you ever thought about the US militia movement. These people believe the US government is controlled by the UN which aims to establish the New World Order, and many of these people prepare for a civil war, some passive, some more aggressively. A case of legal self-defence?
See, it makes sense that in the more developed countries the people delegate the monopoly to use force to dedicated forces.

Oh and can we please leave the legacy political philosophers where they belong- on dusty shelves.

[Andreas Winsnes]

Think about it, through the eyes of Al Quaeda, they are defending the muslim world. They've repeatedly stated that they have the right to defend themselves against the infidels. You want to legalize this?

Of course not.

The argument of self-defence has always been abused, by those who committed the genocide in Rwanda for example. I argue that the legal rules of self-defence and necessity, as they are presented in the penal codes of Western democracies, represent not only legal expertise but also "common sense".

It is this kind of common sense, not random opinions presented by arbitrary citizens, which should be the standard when one tries to assess whether the concept of defensive political violence follows logically from the legal rules of self-defence and necessity.

[Falstaff]

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

Of course not.

The argument of self-defence has always been abused,

Exactly! And you're abusing it as well

...by those who committed the genocide in Rwanda for example. I argue that the legal rules of self-defence and necessity, as they are presented in the penal codes of Western democracies, represent not only legal expertise but also "common sense".

Again, what is common sense? And who possesses it? Don't you at least need a competent and educated citizen that knows whether a perceived threat really is one (US militia), or if a real threat is one because you (the citizen) is wrong in his doings (Al Quaeda).

It is this kind of common sense, not random opinions presented by arbitrary citizens, which should be the standard when one tries to assess whether the concept of defensive political violence follows logically from the legal rules of self-defence and necessity.

Again, you're assuming too much. I'm sorry, I think this is naive and shortsighted.

The best self-defence against the kind of threat you're talking about is a modern democratical state the likes of which we have in Western Europe.

[Andreas Winsnes]

Again, what is common sense? And who possesses it? Don't you at least need a competent and educated citizen that knows whether a perceived threat really is one

The legal community in Western democracies possesses it, primarily, but it is also important to have a public debate about the boundaries of self-defence and necessity.

If you actually study the legal rules of self-defence and necessity, you will see that they form a set of surprisingly clear premises from which, I argue, it is possible to draw logical conclusions in regard to the question about defensive political violence.

But remember that if there is a specific case of oppression where it is not possible to draw any clear conclusion, most likely because one lacks enough information about what is actually going on in the conflict, then one can not use these rules to justify militant operations.

This problem is well illustrated by the Iraq WMD embarrassment. If you don't have enough intel, you can not act, and this will limit the number of militant operations in a large degree.

I don't abuse the concept of self-defence. I only discuss it. And often I myself present arguments against LAW, as you will see in the forum of defence.nu

The goal is to clarify the boundaries of these legal rules, not to storm some barricades.