Fort Dix Six

Hmmmmmm...

I think I still prefer the term "terrorists." Or how about "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists"?
Yeah, the second one...

Actually what you are saying is incorrect under the "Law of War" as they teach us in law school-

you are still a terrorist when you fire on military personnel if YOU are wearing civilian clothes, belong to a non-state and non recognized armed unit, and do not follow the Geneva Conventions yourself.

The Dix Six are still "terrorists" in a legal and political sense. Soldiers on Fort Dix being of unquestionable military value certainly constitute lawful targets under the Law of War. As pointed out by the LT supra, what makes the Dix Six "unlawful combatants" (and therefore "terrorists") are their methods (unless they were planning on wearing some kind of distinctive uniform-like outfit during their operation) and their complete lack of sovereign backing (privately waged "war" is a no-no).

Morally, however, I agree that the Dix Six plot is not as spectacularly evil as attacking noncombatants at a Wal-Mart. The undocumented alien members of the Dix Six are even less morally culpable in my opinion, as they haven't even a pretense of fidelity to the USA.

Don't get me wrong - I still think the Dix Six are all incorrigibly bad, dangerous, and should be locked up for a geologically long time. Besides, no one threatens my family (the Army) and gets away with it. But John's nuanced point is well-taken.

well fishman brings up whole nother issue in itself, no one can settle on the definition of terrorism either. the israeli def excludes military targets like ft. dix, which is the logical def IMHO.

I call them terrorists. I haven't seen all of the evidence but if they attack an Army post and say, go for the schools or daycares that are there, or the married housing, wouldn't that constitute terrorism??

Actually, inspite of the fact that they were planning on attacking a military base, there is no proof that they were intending to strike hard military targets.

The average base is loaded with civilian soft targets. Veterans services, the base clinics and chapels, daycares for military children, onbase housing, base amenities such as BXs and gas stations are usually crewed out with civilian employees, and chock full of civilian spouses and children shopping while the military member of the family is on duty.

Spouses, children, and a rediculous amount of veterans wandering about, a military base has its fair share of civilians running around.

They fit the profile of a terrorist regardless of the target. They are between the ages of 18-40, have a common religion,
are male, have jihad on their minds and
had a target. They made plans to hit the target.

Or we can call them enemy combatants.

I see where you are coming from. It is easy to water down the definition of terrorist by labeling anyone and everyone with the said nomenclature. That does not help the war on terrorism.

No one will know whether or not these guys are terrorists because no one knows what they were going to hit inside Dix. If it was the base Church, then yes they were terrorists. If it was a barracks, then it is a military attack.

BC - I tend to agree with the definition given by Lt. Fishman. Going by your definition, al Qaeda are not terrorists if they only attack military targets. Thus, al Qaeda in Iraq, when attacking Coalition forces, are not terrorists, but simply military forces.

I don't agree with that definition.

I think Lt. Fishman has it right. If we go with the definition that simply attacking civilian targets is considered terrorism, then I would guess the Allies were guilty of terrorism during WWII, right?

John, IMHO, we are taking a VERY fine hair and trying to split it, thickness wise, many times. It appears to me, you are saying this was not, by definition, "terrorism". Let's just say for the sake of discussion, we agree. Would you be willing to say, at least, by definition, "This was an act of war?" Considering we are in a "Global War on Terror", we need to consider what we are saying. Depending on whether this planned attack on Ft. Dix is viewed as either an Act of War or Terror, is important. How does this impact on the American Citizen's view on this nation's response or should it all? There are an infinite number of questions, but let's start here.

Grumpy

I think the word "sabatours" would be more fitting. Correct me if I am wrong but I belive Terrorism is an ideoligy. Since these guys were forigners and non uniform they should be treated as such ie. swift execution.
I have always said that someday a couple well armed men taking out a mall or a theater is just around the corner. Remember the chaos that the two snipers did around DC a couple of years ago?

Mustang, you raise an important consideration. The term "sabateur" has a difficult side to this issue. It raises the question, "How do we deal with the issue of non-uniformed personnel in a military theater of operations?" Yes, we need to watch very carefully our use of terms.

Just a thought,
Grumpy"

The only issue with labels is the issue of what to do with them. The term "Guerilla" has definite baggage and may serve to shock uninvolved Americans into a state of awareness. The term also has specific legal implications, which in fairness the 6 may not know about.

"Under customary law and the Third Geneva Convention (Art. 4), the guerrilla fighters of a Party to the conflict are entitled to combatant status, and therefore to prisoner-of-war status, only if they fulfil the following conditions: being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
source: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNUY

Viewing Bin Laden videos, video-taping their martial training exploits, and going after an arguably legit military target does in my un-legal mind define the 6 as guerrillas and thus accorded EPW status.

Now, can the Pentagon make the same argument for all the folks locked up in Gitmo and claim a small victory in the information war, or will they only focus on shutting down MySpace?

Michael,

how would you characterize the Allies' bombing of Dresden? It should be noted that some German foreign affairs papers called it "Terror Bombing" at the time. Of course, it is the victors that get to write history.

Let us not use the good intentions of the civilized world to forget the evil acts committed in support of those intentions.

can't we just call them "targets" and service them accordingly? seems a damn sight easier than all the legal mumbo jumbo.

redc1c4,
NMC 11B

DaveO:

You can be a guerilla without being a guerilla of a "Party to the conflict." If you're going to call the Dix Six guerillas, they fall into the former category.

Being a guerilla under the GC just relates to HOW you fight (i.e. irregular forces). You still have to be fighting for a particular Party though (a signatory to the GC) and comport yourselves as a regularly constituted force (uniforms, cmd structure, etc).

AQ is neither a signatory to the GC nor a "Party to the conflict."

Merely being motivated by jihad and radicalism doesn't make you a member of AQ, a particular state. or more specifically, a particular state's irregular forces.

And I don't think we're willing to go so far as to claim that Allah is a "Party to the conflict" such that all his followers get EPW status...