Craig Baker

2023 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Nominee. Mobility Trust is the leading financial service provider solely dedicated to the unmet credit needs of peop

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Yes, old boy, courts recognize common-law rights. Nobody disputed that.

But pointing to parental rights doesn’t establish that this particular claimed right exists under international law, much less tell us its scope.

Glenn said people are “legally permitted” to use force against occupying soldiers. That’s a proposition about the law of armed conflict, not an invitation to analogize to American parental rights.

And the ICRC is rather inconveniently specific: civilian participation in hostilities is “neither prohibited nor privileged” by IHL. Civilians do not automatically acquire combatant privilege merely by taking up arms.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Voilà: Hamas, and the conduct described firsthand by Shem Tov disappears from the discussion.

Its a classic debate maneuver, @mehdirhasan changes the frame rather than addressing Shem Tov’s argument.

Hamas kidnapped civilians, held them inside the battlespace, knew precisely where they were, and sometimes fled anticipated Israeli strikes while leaving the hostages behind. Hamas created the conditions that endangered both its hostages and Palestinian civilians.

Mehdi substitutes a different question: whether Netanyahu could have secured the hostages’ release sooner through negotiations.

That is a legitimate debate to have about Netanyahu. But even if you accept Mehdi’s premise, it still doesn’t rebut Shem Tov’s argument about

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

@chronofugit @ggreenwald @smittie61984 Charming, old boy.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Not quite, old boy. That is precisely the distinction you’re missing.

A civilian does not automatically become a lawful combatant merely by “fighting back.” A civilian who directly participates in hostilities generally loses protection from attack for such time as he participates; he does not thereby acquire combatant status or combatant privilege.

The ICRC is explicit on this point: civilian participation is “neither prohibited nor privileged” under IHL, and such civilians may still be prosecuted under domestic law even for acts that otherwise comply with IHL.

So you’ve now demonstrated the point we’ve been arguing about:

Taking up arms and becoming a legally privileged combatant are not the same thing.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

The soldier’s status does not automatically determine the attacker’s legal status, old boy.

Yes, I understand the adjective “occupying.” Repeating it in capital letters doesn’t answer the question.

Whether a foreign soldier occupying territory may lawfully be targeted is one question.

Whether every civilian living under that occupation is therefore legally privileged to attack that soldier is another.

The ICRC is rather explicit: IHL “neither prohibits nor privileges” civilian direct participation in hostilities.

A civilian may lose protection while fighting and may still be prosecuted under domestic law.

So we aren’t debating whether these are “random soldiers.”

We’re debating whether the soldier’s status automatically determines the attacker’s legal status.

It doesn’t.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Perhaps Glenn was being hyperbolic. But when your hyperbole consists of accusing someone of directing a military to kill another person, pointing out that she did no such thing isn't pedantry.

It's a rather important distinction that the hyperbole itself obscures.

You seem remarkably certain about what Glenn really meant, old boy. Unless there was a Vulcan mind meld I missed, I’ll stick with what he actually said.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Old boy, ou’ve changed the question.

If you want to argue that resistance to occupation is a natural or moral right, make that argument. Glenn made a claim about what people are “legally permitted” to do.

That brings us back to the law.
IHL neither prohibits nor privileges civilian participation in hostilities. A civilian may take up arms, but unlike a privileged combatant, he may be prosecuted under domestic law even for acts that otherwise comply with IHL.

So the First Amendment analogy doesn’t rescue Glenn’s legal claim. It substitutes a philosophical claim about natural rights for a legal claim about what international law permits and protects.

Those are two different propositions, old boy. That’s been my point from the beginning.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Ah, Google, The Supreme Court.

Yes, international law recognizes a right of peoples to self-determination and, in certain contexts, armed resistance to foreign occupation.

What you still haven’t established is Glenn’s actual proposition: that this means civilians are “legally permitted” to attack occupying soldiers.

The ICRC rather inconveniently says the opposite of that simplification: IHL “neither prohibits nor privileges” civilian direct participation in hostilities, and civilians who participate may still be prosecuted under domestic law.

So by all means Google “right to resist,” old boy.

Then Google “combatant privilege.”

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

This argument is ridiculous. that is, it invites ridicule.

It takes an enormous allegation, supplies the conclusion as its own evidence, and then reaches for Hitler.

You have moved from “large numbers of Palestinian civilians have been killed” to “Netanyahu is killing Palestinians because they are Palestinians and wants to kill as many as possible.”

Those are not remotely the same proposition.

The second is a claim about exterminatory intent. Comparing it to Hitler makes that claim more dramatic; it does not provide the evidence necessary to establish it.

If that is your accusation, demonstrate the intent rather than simply declaring it.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Fair correction, old boy.

Let’s use Glenn’s exact words: “all people on the earth are legally permitted to use force against foreign soldiers occupying their land.”

My paraphrase was broader. “Intentional misrepresentation” is your inference.

Now back to the point:
where does international law establish that civilians living under occupation are therefore “legally permitted” to use force against occupying soldiers?

Whether a soldier may lawfully be targeted and whether a civilian is legally permitted to participate in hostilities are two different questions.

That distinction was my point. It remains my point.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

@GStanley71 @ggreenwald Ah, progress, old boy.

We’ve gone from “Google stochastic terrorism” to “Glenn was clearly being hyperbolic.”

I’ll save you the next Google search: “concession.”

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Close, old boy. You’ve successfully restated Glenn’s claim. Now you just need to establish it.

A soldier being a legitimate military target does not, by itself, confer combatant privilege on every civilian who chooses to attack him.

That rather inconvenient distinction is the entire point.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

@chronofugit @ggreenwald @smittie61984 I see we’ve reached the legal analysis portion of the discussion, old boy.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

The only honest bit of this entire exchange may be the Community Note.

CNN omitted a materially important fact: Leiter wasn't simply “the Israeli ambassador's son.” He was an IDF reservist serving at the checkpoint when he was attacked. The Note corrected it.

Then Greenwald engages in some impressive legal sleight of hand: because Leiter was a soldier, “all people on earth are legally permitted to use force” against him.

Not quite, old boy.

Being potentially targetable under the laws of armed conflict is not the same as giving every civilian a legal privilege to attack you. The ICRC expressly says IHL “neither prohibits nor privileges” civilian direct participation in hostilities.
And if we're demanding the complete context, let's have it: the attacker reportedly drove a civilian vehicle bearing a stolen Israeli license plate into the checkpoint.

CNN omitted an important fact. The Community Note corrected it.

Greenwald performed legal sleight of hand on it.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

@48thAve @sophia45454 @ggreenwald Call me whatever names you like, old chap.

It doesn’t improve Glenn’s accusation.

Invective is not evidence.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

I did, old boy. You may wish to Google it as well.

The defining feature of “stochastic terrorism” is that it describes violence occurring without a direct command to the perpetrator.

Glenn, however, said that General Weiss “directed the IDF to murder him.”
So you haven’t established Glenn’s claim. You’ve replaced his explicit allegation of direction with an entirely different theory of causation.

Glenn puts the epaulettes on Bari; now you’re trying to take them off again.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

Even granting your premise entirely, old chap, you still haven’t established Glenn’s claim.

If Alareer was deliberately targeted in an IDF strike, fine. That still does not establish that General Weiss “directed the IDF to murder him.”

This was 2023. Bari was still at The Free Press. She hadn’t yet ascended to the big leagues at CBS, much less the Israeli high command.

So where is the evidence connecting Weiss to the decision to carry out the strike?

Poor Bari. Glenn keeps pinning epaulettes on her she never earned.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

My dear lady, you’ve rather neatly demonstrated the problem with glen's accusation.

“He said she would be responsible if he were killed” is Alareer’s prediction of responsibility. “Her comments gave hotheads an excuse” is your theory of causation.

Neither is evidence that @bariweiss “directed the IDF to murder him,” which is what Glenn actually alleged.

Those are three very different propositions.
If Glenn has evidence for the third, let’s see it. Otherwise, the epaulettes remain decidedly unearned.

[Craig Baker @acigarbreak]

@GTChapmanEsq @ChrisVanHollen Well, old chap, I fear we really have become pen pals.