Civil War 2.0

 

Civil War 2.0

©2020  Ross Williams

 

 

Every once in a while, if you spend any amount of time on the internet or have an email acquaintance with a philosophical bent towards “progressive” [ironic term] politics, you’ll be confronted with a whiny list of gripes describing how the police response to recent riots in several major American cities fail to follow the Geneva Convention [always a singular citation], and that therefore American cops are war criminals.  So there.

Only one problem with this theory: it is monumentally flawed.

First, there are multiple Geneva Conventions.  Four, to be exact.

The first covers wounded and ill soldiers on the battlefield and those who are there to care for them.

The second extends to sailors stranded at sea or shipwrecked, and those caring for them.

The third is the one most people know about, dealing with prisoners of war and who can, who must and who cannot be considered as same.

The fourth deals with civilians and their “artifacts”.

Second, the Geneva Conventions, or GenCons, apply only to military or paramilitary actions recognized as “war”.  They do not apply to law enforcement, or domestic disturbances which fall short of an outright rebellion.  A rebellion would be considered, relative to the GenCons, a civil war, and thus the GenCons would apply if the nation fighting the civil war has signed onto them.

Third, and finally, the current domestic instability occurring in many major American cities are generally considered to fall significantly short of a rebellion at the moment, and thus the GenCons would not, in fact, apply.  The riots are properly, and currently, law enforcement actions − even if many law enforcers are willfully derelict in their duties.

These whiny, faux-pious denunciations claiming cops to be war criminals is a backhanded admission that the fascists of Auntie Fey and the socialists of BLM are actually at war against the United States, a condition that many, including myself, have suggested is their actual intent if not their current undertaking.  I’ve often stumbled upon someone idly asking when we’re going to see our Firing On Fort Sumter Moment; I reply that I believe we already have − we just don’t realize it yet.

Indeed, the Geneva Conventions themselves would support this.  The GenCons note that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions shall apply − quote − to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.  It is painfully clear that a state of war is not recognized by the United States, itself.

It is also painfully clear that the fascists of Auntie Fey are not among the High Contracting Parties.  No matter; the GenCons then go on to explain that you only really need one side of a war being party to the GenCons for them to apply.  Maybe.  There are exceptions.  What would be the fun of law if there were no exceptions? 

What is thoroughly unclear is what constitutes a “state of war” under International Law.  All IntLaw references recognize that a state of war exists at the moment of a declaration of war, but that an outright declaration is quite unnecessary if one is being fought.  War is war, and declarations are politics.  It seems to be, like pornography, another in the “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it” constructs.

Even so, many individuals involved in the current rioting have openly declared war on the “systemically racist” and abusively capitalist United States.  Do these individuals speak for their larger organizations?  … organizations which have the stated purpose of dismantling western civilization in general and the United States in particular?

Or, in the case of Auntie Fey, do they speak for the larger un-membered, dues-less, leaderless, structure-less non-organization?  Their actions certainly suggest so.  One such group of separatist rioters even went so far as to declare itself independent, and not in a Conch Republic kinda way, where they immediately surrendered and applied for US foreign aid.  They set up shop on the slopes of downtown Seattle, established an independent “noble anarchy” − which was given over almost immediately to a strongarm dictator and his henchmen, and there they stayed.  …until they started killing each other and they were rounded up by the Seattle police who decided to stop being derelict.

But let’s just suppose that the fascists of Auntie Fey and the socialists of BLM actually do start waging what the international Rules of War and the United States might recognize as war.  What would that mean from a practical, GenCons-obedient standpoint?

Among the first things that must happen is that the fascists of Auntie Fey and the socialists of BLM must create and maintain a military structure for their organizations, establishing a chain of command in which a superior is responsible for the conduct of his subordinates.  Additionally, they must start wearing uniforms, or adopting some other “fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” to identify them as legitimate Cosplayers of War.  They must also carry their arms openly, and obey all the rules of war.  This last would likely be the biggest problem for the socialist-fascists, given their repeated ignorant whinings about war criminals sans war.

Of course, there’s no shortage of folks who’d be willing to sign up to fight these wheezy wankers in their own militias, and they’d have the same requirements placed upon them.  These potential future enemies of today’s rioters are generally known [mostly by leftists] by their collective name, “Boogaloo Boys”. They are considered “anti-government extremists” by the same people who are now going out of their way to torch government buildings, fight cops in the streets and demand the destruction of the United States. It should be noted that the Boogaloo Boys have never done these, nor declared any intention to.

Generally speaking, the Boogs, to the degree they cohesively exist outside the febrile imaginations of leftists as anything other than regular 2^nd Amendment aficionados, would be better armed, better trained, already more or less regimented, with camouflage gear making them highly recognizable on the largely urban battlefield and, given that many are veterans in the first place, sufficiently aware of the rules of war that it wouldn’t be a burden for them to learn.

If this actually were a war, the cops − and all others stepping up to put down the SoyBoi Rebellion − would stop using tear gas and rubber bullets.  They’d use real bullets, and lots of them.  The moment an Indianapolis street bandito pointed a gun at a car attempting to get down the avenue toward home would be his last.  He could be shot as an enemy combatant.  So could anyone with him.  And there would be no repercussions for anyone, because it is war.  Due Process doesn’t exist in war.  Civil rights are irrelevant in combat.  The enemy soldier is your judge and jury.

You wanna wage war?  Alrighty then: this is war.

The second you don your twin flag Auntie Fey emblem, or arrange B, L and M in alphabetical order, and step from your mommy’s basement into open air you can be shot.  Repeatedly.  Like how Quentin Tarantino or Sam Peckinpah would do it if they were directing.  Hell, you can be shot while still getting dressed.  By the enemy standing on your mommy’s basement steps.  Univited.  There are no property rights in war, either.  Isn’t that preferable to the tear gas you whine about as being a war crime?

You can be captured.  In which case, your whimpers about “unmarked vans” are simply pampered suburbanite Karening.  Go complain to the manager of the war you started if you don’t like the service.  Be glad it isn’t the cattle car you’ve already declared you’d use on everyone who doesn’t think like you as you send us off to your gulags for re-education.

If captured, your detention and the location of same are of no consequence to anyone, least of all you.  You are entitled to send and receive mail from family and have assembly line medical checkups, and as long as that happens you’ve got almost no platform for legitimate complaint under the rules of war.  You can be held without charge for as long as the state of war exists.  Just remember, soldier: name, rank and serial number.

So, how badly do you want to play war?

In war, if you don’t want to play by the rules, the other side doesn’t have to either.

Most importantly, if you want to play soldier but don’t openly advertise yourself to be a combatant, not only can you be shot on sight just as a legitimate combatant would, but if you try to surrender you can still be shot.  The GenCons provide no protections for those who do not play war properly.  And there’s really no excuse for not doing it properly, since the IntLaw concept of “proper” war is so wide.

It’s time to shit or get off the pot, boys and girls.  Either start the war you’re pretentiously claiming the cops are fighting unfairly, or quit crying about being arrested as the criminal assholes you are.  At this point, that’s all you are and you need to be thankful for that.