OC for ME
Regular Member
Old conversation. Debating definitions. If the bullets start flying what you call it, civil war or rebellion, really does not matter any more.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Civil War on the Horizon? Possibly, and this is the likely Diving Line
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
KBCraig
Regular Member
Oh, so one was a group who wished to leave what was then their lawful government and establish their own independence, but the other group was... somehow different?
since9
Campaign Veteran
I don't make the definitions, KB. But I do understand them.
Speaking of which, one definition for civil war sounds defining it as between the government and another sub-faction sounds more like something along the lines of a conflict involving revolution, rebellion, etc. It doesn't appear to include conflict between different factions beneath the government.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Interesting read.
The comments are of particular interest. As I stated in my previous post...If the bullets start flying[sic] what you call it, civil war or rebellion, really does not matter any more.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Well, I disagree. In 1775, the bullets started flying, and we called it a Revolution.
In 1861, the bullets started flying, and we called it a Civil War.
In the former, we welcomed assistance from other countries, most notably the French.
In the latter, we shunned assistance from other countries.
It's very important to understand both the identity and nature of the contestants in any conflict.
So, yes, OC for ME, what it's called -- it's identity and nature -- really does matter.
Since9, for once you are correct, terms really do matter.
the thread you initiated labeling it ‘CIVIL WAR...’ coupled with the legal definition not the lexicon definition you poffered and as the saying goes, tho slightly modified, ‘a civil war by 18 US CODE, Chapter 15, is still considered ~ treason, sedition, and subversive activities by your government and it’s agents.’
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
I fixed it.
CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec.
2381. Treason.
2382. Misprision of treason.
2383. Rebellion or insurrection.
2384. Seditious conspiracy.
2385. Advocating overthrow of Government.
2386. Registration of certain organizations.
2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally.
2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war.
2389. Recruiting for service against United States.
2390. Enlistment to serve against United States.
since9
Campaign Veteran
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Interestingly, U.S. Codes does not directly mention "civil war." It does, however, as you noted, address activities commonly associated with civil war, but limits its discussion to conflict between the federal government and individuals or organizations. It does not address civil war between non-federal entitities.
However, the Geneva Conventions, first "adopted in 1864 to establish the red cross emblem signifying neutral status and protection of medical services and volunteers," and to which the United States is a signatory nation, does address Civil War.
Couple of key take-aways:
The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat (French, literally "outside the fight"), or incapable of fighting. The first Convention was initiated by what is now the International Committee for the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC). This convention produced a treaty designed to protect wounded and sick soldiers during wartime.
Article 3, Commonly Applied to All Four Protocols of the General Conventions.
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. Types vary greatly and include traditional civil wars or internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States, as well as internal conflicts in which third-party States or multinational forces intervene alongside the government.
Common Article 3 functions like a mini-Convention within the larger Geneva Convention itself, and establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted, containing the essential rules of the Geneva Convention in a condensed format, and making them applicable to non-international conflicts.
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. Types vary greatly and include traditional civil wars or internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States, as well as internal conflicts in which third-party States or multinational forces intervene alongside the government.
Common Article 3 functions like a mini-Convention within the larger Geneva Convention itself, and establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted, containing the essential rules of the Geneva Convention in a condensed format, and making them applicable to non-international conflicts.
- It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without discrimination. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, the taking of hostages, unfair trial, and cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment.
- It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for.
- It grants the ICRC the right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict.
- It calls on the parties to the conflict to bring all or parts of the Geneva Conventions into force through "special agreements."
- It recognizes that the application of these rules does not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.
- Given that most armed conflicts today are non-international, applying Common Article 3 is of the utmost importance. Its full respect is required.
Other elements of federal law address armed conflict within our borders.
Last edited: