Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: ACLU objects to killing of al Qaeda leader
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief ... -to-killing-of-al-qaeda-leader
Published: Sep 30, 2011
Author: Erik Wasson
Post Date: 2011-09-30 12:40:46 by Sebastian
Keywords: None
Views: 126005
Comments: 179
The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the killing of the U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by U.S. forces. Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and the ACLU said President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American without due process of law. The White House confirmed the cleric was killed by a U.S. drone attack. “The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said. “As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.” The ACLU said the government only has the authority to kill Americans when a threat is imminent. “It is a mistake to invest the president — any president — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country,” Jaffer said. Ben Wizner, litigation director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, added: “If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.” Obama’s actions also garnered criticism from GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-127) not displayed.
.
.
.
#128. To: war, A K A Stone (#124)
Absolute, total bullshit. I argued that the CIA operatives in charge were civilians. They are not members of the uniformed armed forces. If they are to be considered armed forces, then they committed a war crime as they participated out of military uniform and without displaying any distinctive insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces, which they are not entitled to wear. If they wore the uniform or insignia, then they committed the offense of perfidy. I have not made any argument about what status Obama acted in. However, to clarify, Obama is Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces (The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States) (U.S. Const. Art. 2, Sec 2, Cl 1.) He is NOT the Commander-in-Chief of the United States or its citizenry. He is not Commander-in-Chief of the CIA. His authority as C-in-C is the same as if the nation had chosen to have the senior general be the C-in-C, and he was it. If the hypothetical military general could not do something as C-in-C, neither can Obama in his capacity as C-in-C. Laws evolve and the boundaries of the Laws of War cannot remain static in their application when enemies do not remain static in how they wage war. Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. If the Laws of War have not evolved to your satisfaction, does that mean they may be ignored by the United States, while an American judge participates at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which "has jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity?" These trials are ongoing. "The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014." Under the Laws of War, when one party to a conflict abandons conformance to the Laws of War, an opposing party may equally abandon the same. Under this standard, it would be lawful for al-Qaeda to commit the target killing of President Obama. It may be analgous to the option, under the Laws of War, available to the Confederacy after the Union's failed Dahlgren Raid. Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, February 2010, page 540. Elision as in source. Boldface added. - - - Thanks. And we killed Izzy Yamamoto... - - - [nc #34] Please show where AUMF pertains to anything other than military force in combat? How do you translate it to non-military force engaged in assassination? Do you really find the status of American/Yemini citizen Al-Aulaqi comparable to that of Admiral (Japanese Naval General) Yamamoto? - - - [war #37] Please cite your authority for claiming that a) the resolution requires that all military actions be "combat" when the resolution clearly states "all necessary and appropriate force" and that command and control structures and personnel would be immune from any type of military strike or that b) a drone attack is not "military force"? And please don't cite wikipedia as being some sort of authority. Thanks. Permit me to give a fuller exploration of your Izzy Yamamoto remark with a quote from competent legal authority. See Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 103-104. As for your CIA led drone strike, see Vincent-Joël Proulx, If the Hat Fits Wear It, If the Turban Fits, Run for your Life: Reflections on the Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists, Hastings Law Journal, Volume 56, 2004-2005, page 888, discussing the targeted killing, by drone strike, of Mullah Mohammed Omar. In this case it is much more than likely that CIA operatives coordinated the targeted killings. Such has been stated to be the fact.
He isn't spamming. He is documenting. Crossing his T's and dotting his I's. He is thorough.
Stop making believe you can either read my mind or accurately recall a damn thing I have written but you cannot cite or quote. You dwell in the land of the Bullshitter. I believe in the Laws of Physics. I do not know what the cause of the building coming down was. When someone rationally explains, within the Laws of Physics, how gravity alone can cause a 110-story vertical collapse, with pulverization or powderization occurring on the way down, and complete the process in less than 10 seconds, I will have something to believe. Regarding 7WTC, it has been proven and admitted that it fell a considerable distance at gravitational acceleration. This is impossible unless there was no resistance from below. The events are not satisfactorily explained. What I really said. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24854&Disp=2#C2 That was the disproved government conspiracy theory. It is the so-called conspiracy theorists who were proven correct. This disproved pancake theory was officially declared dead. The pancake theory failed to survive the expert critics who pointed out why it was physically impossible. It would be impossible to collapse the building in ten seconds. There would be no pulverizing in mid-air on the way down. The law of conservation of momentum would have to be repealed. And, of course, to cause a vertical fall, hundreds of connectors on each floor would need to fail simultaneously. And, of course, the near free fall speed required the lower floor to enter downward motion before the upper floor reached it. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (NIST NCSTAR throughout this document refers to one of the 43 volumes that comprise NIST’s final report on the WTC Towers issued in October 2005. All sections of the report listed in this document are available at http://wtc.nist.gov.) [...] 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers. Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower. NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns— consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. [...]
You have provided none. I am dismissive of McCain's comment ten years later while addressing funding for his own partisan purposes because it is directly contrary to law, and I quoted several legal authorities to that effect. You pull your claims out of your butt and when challenged to support them, you cannot or will not. We participate in the execution or incarceration of people based precisely on the laws you deny to exist. They exist, but nobody can enforce them against our C-in-C, so we ignore them while we invoke them against the smaller and less powerful. Remember, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. The US is engaged in an authorized military action against Al Qaeda. That is indisuputable. It would, therefore, stand the laws and resolutions regarding armed conflict to disregard any member of an enemy organization who has direct knowledge of its terrorist operations and who also encourages those same operations to be regarded as a civilian rather than some form of combatant. It not only strains credulity of the laws of war but of common sense as well. Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Unfortunately, your version of the Laws of War cannot be quoted from legal authority but only pulled out of your butt by the steaming pantload. Laws evolve and the boundaries of the Laws of War cannot remain static in their application when enemies do not remain static in how they wage war. Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. If the Laws of War have not evolved to your satisfaction, does that mean they may be ignored by the United States, while an American judge participates at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which "has jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity?" These trials are ongoing. "The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014." Under the Laws of War, when one party to a conflict abandons conformance to the Laws of War, an opposing party may equally abandon the same. Under this standard, it would be lawful for al-Qaeda to commit the target killing of President Obama. It may be analgous to the option, under the Laws of War, available to the Confederacy after the Union's failed Dahlgren Raid. Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, February 2010, page 540. Elision as in source. Boldface added.
You stating that I am "making up facts" does not make it so. Frankly, you ARE spamming, You throw a line or two in with little to absolutely no cogent reference to anything that I have posted and then provide "authority" with absolutely no cross referencing to how it is supposed to fit into the discussion. I went one round with you previously on Lincoln and his blockade which you claimed violated a treaty with Mexico. You did the same thing., i.e. you did one or all of a) ignored the counter argument, b) dismissed it as a "pantload" and/or provided voluminous materials most of which were extrinsic to the discussion. Sound familiar? You've done the same here. You've not made the case in any way, shape or recognizable form that this targeted killing of a high value military target was extra-legal. You've not made the case in any way, shape or recognizable form that the ongoing war against Al Qaeda violates the AUMF of 9/18/01. Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99 Did you actually READ the entire section from which you culled this one snippet? My guess is that apparently you did not... Read page 542.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Can I change your name to "The Government Line"? You still haven't answered what specifically the guy did and the documentation. Why is that? Because you are full of shit that is why.
Chuckles...always the chihuahua behind the bulldog, Stone...good boy. Now...SIT...
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
You already are, sometimes I cruise around with out my filter activated to see what the nuts are saying. And, ya, I already don't read it. Too many words, dude.
------------------------------------- You haven't answered that. Also about 20 other things above you fail to address. All you do is say the President can kill him because he is a terrorist. In this nation you are supposed to be_____________Until proven guilty? If you can't fill in the blank I have real doubts if you are even American.
Maybe you should take the time to read a little deeper. I'm sure he takes more time typing it up and sourcing it then it would take you to read.
Too much effort. I'm not really all that interested. I'm more interested in how different people argue or present their case, and determining the likely truth from that. You can pick out a bullshitter from his presentation, rather than sifting thru a ton of information.
------------------------------------- Lets give you a test then and see if you pass. Is war a bullshitter? Or just full of shit? Or dead on accurate?
Sure I have. Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki when, in fact, the opposite was true. The commmision, in fact, found a lot of smoke around him if no fire. Nolo culled a passage from a work on targeted killing and presented one statement - wholly out out of context to the work - that made it seem that the writer was making the case that such killings might be justified if they meet certain criteria. A point found clearly on page 542 of his work cited. Nolo tries to make the case that any military action undertaken by agents and officers of the CIA violate various rules and protocols of war to which the US is a signatory. He does so without offering any anecdotal US law or dicta which is an effective estoppel of the CIA in acting in a military capacity. INstead, he presents one side of the argument - the laws and protocols of war - without identifying an US law that may exist that contravenes those laws and protocols. IN other words, he avers that the CIA cannot engage in military actions without citing any US LAW so forbiding. He fails to acknowledge that the enemy that the US is fighting engages in such actions as well and in like manner. He expects the US to be bound to the letter of those rules and protocols in this fight while the enemy has free reign to not do so and given the nature of the enemy as "out of uniform" any action against them must be the act of not the Commander in Chief but of the civilian executive bound by the limits of the Bill of Rights. Nolo fails to acknowledge that the Constitutional powers of the POTUS which charge him with ensuring the safety of US border and citizens give him broad latitude in dispatching recognized combatants. He fails to recognize that the AUMF of 9/18/01 was directed against Al Qaeda. He relies on one floor speech as being the heart and soul of that authorization. I cited floor speech after floor speech as well as the recent words of Senator McCain which state QUITE CLEARLY that the intent of the AUMF is to eradicate Al qaeda. You believe that because Nolo provides voluminous materials that he must be correct. Most of his "information" is extrinsic, spurious or taken wholly out of context. So, yes, Stone, I HAVE answered it. This was a military undertaking not a civilian law enforcement matter.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
lol, probably neither you nor war will like the answer too much. War's not a bullshitter. Sometimes he's full of shit, sometimes he's dead on accurate. I think BeAChooser beat him in debate and I think ImStillRight beat him too. But lately war beats pretty much everyone. Like a rented mule. lol, how'd you like that war?!!
------------------------------------- Feint praise indeed.
"Would you just go suck a c*ck and get it over with already?" war posted on 2011-10-12 11:14:27 ET
lol, how'd you like that war?!! Mike Lange is in the Hockey Hall of Fame for a reason, Biff!!! I disagree about BAC. I usually had him scrambling like the Little Dutch Boy who ran out of fingers. I knew I had him when he started screaming "KOOK!!! KOOK!!! KOOK!!!" IMSR did best me a couple of time prior to 2006...after 2006 he got pretty cold. He was a pretty good guy who just up and disappeared. Hope all is well with him and his.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
To you Jethro, anything more than two sentences is "spamming." Put down your SpongeBob coloring book. Mr. Chan is busy backing up his assertions in what is called a forum "debate." Nothing you'd understand.
"Would you just go suck a c*ck and get it over with already?" war posted on 2011-10-12 11:14:27 ET
Ya, he was a good guy. I hope he's ok too. And you can't really blame BAC if he got trigger happy yelling KOOK, he was swarmed by the kooks.
------------------------------------- It's the internet fuckhead. I'm not here to praise anyone, and I doubt war's looking for it. Unlike you. And everyone's full of shit at some point. Except you, who's always full of shit. Now why don't you go suck a cock and get it over with?
------------------------------------- You didn't know that I use the internet for self-validation? /sarc
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
My guess is that apparently you did not... Read page 542. Your post responds to my #127 to Biff, the total text of which is, "When war stops making up facts, I'll stop documenting it. If you don't like it, don't read it. You are always welcome to put me on bozo." If there is something you like on page 542, quote it. Use any page, I have the book. I have all the books I am quoting from.
I have correctly characterized that page in my post. Feel free to dispute that characterization.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
[war #140] "Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki when, in fact, the opposite was true. The commmision, in fact, found a lot of smoke around him if no fire." I did not cite the 9/11 Commission as exonerating al-Aulaqi. There has never been anything to exonerate him for in America. He has never been charged with anything. I quoted the relevant material showing that they failed to conclude guilt of anything, much less anything to justify an execution without trial. [war #33] "He met with and, IIRC, harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers and became an integral member of AQ as a spokesman and a plotter and had himself called for "jihad" against the US and acts of terror against us." [nc #34] "As far as I know, he stood neither indicted nor charged with any criminal act, much less tried or convicted. I know of no assertion that he "harbored" 9/11 hijackers. Even if there were evidence that two people who later became hijackers stayed with him, absent knowledge that he was a co-conspirator with foreknowledge of future criminal plans, it's nothing. In 2000, he met two of the future hijackers at his mosque in San Diego. The FBI investigated and found no cause to detain al-Aulaqi. The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader. " I provided the cites, links and quotes to show that what war asserted as fact, is what he now admits was smoke. My sources were Wikipedia and the Daily Mail. I quoted the Daily Mail "The U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report says the men 'respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.'" war's alleged "facts" in support of al-Aulaqi's execution were not facts. At #43, war falsely claimed, "Your contention about what the 9/11 commission "discovered" about al-awlaki seems to be incorrect." [nc #34] The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader. [Daily Mail, nc #34] The U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report says the men 'respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.' That is the only thing there attributed to the 9/11 Report. He could have quoted what I said, and responded to that, but he preferred to make up bullshit. Now he is just making up different bullshit.
[war #140 Nolo tries to make the case that any military action undertaken by agents and officers of the CIA violate various rules and protocols of war to which the US is a signatory. He does so without offering any anecdotal US law or dicta which is an effective estoppel of the CIA in acting in a military capacity. INstead, he presents one side of the argument - the laws and protocols of war - without identifying an US law that may exist that contravenes those laws and protocols. IN other words, he avers that the CIA cannot engage in military actions without citing any US LAW so forbiding. This legal bullshit spewed by war is such bullshit that I will rebut it with the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice. war makes a bullshit claim that can he can never quote, as typical of his bullshit claims, namely, Neither the U.S., nor anyone else, gets an exemption from international law which has been adopted as general custom and practice. The targeting nation does not need to sign anything to come under the constraints of international law as they would be applied to action against a target. Israeli Supreme Court, PCATI v Israel, HCJ 769/02, (2006) (Judgment provided below in full), at paragraph 19: And from paragraph 20: Customary, entrenched international law applies to all sovereign states, whether they signed something or not. Quite obviously war does not have a clue what he is talking about, but he has uncontrollable diarrhea of the mouth. I provided a perfectly good expert legal opinion, and cited and quoted the applicable international laws of very long standing which make the matter of CIA involvement problematic, and I explained why. I can't help it if war is stuck on stupid. The CIA is a civilian agency. The agents are not armed forces. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24727&Disp=43#C43 The US is engaged in an authorized military action against Al Qaeda. That is indisuputable. It would, therefore, stand the laws and resolutions regarding armed conflict to disregard any member of an enemy organization who has direct knowledge of its terrorist operations and who also encourages those same operations to be regarded as a civilian rather than some form of combatant. It not only strains credulity of the laws of war but of common sense as well. Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs - - - - - Not even the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, could buy that nonsense. See PCATI v. Israel HCJ 796/02 (13 Dec 2006), provided infra. The discussion here is about the nature and effect of International law, the Laws of War, and not any domestic law. Regardless of one's opinion regarding the merits of International law, I am not arguing its merit, but arguing that war's assertions about what it contains are twisted nonsense. First, I must address the issue of unlawful combatant. In International Law, such a classification does not exist. "As IHL does not prohibit civilian direct participation in hostilities, the expression 'unlawful combatant' belongs to the realm of domestic law only, and should not be used in a discussion of IHL." 1 [IHL is International Humanitarian Law] Who is a civilian? "A civilian is any person not belonging to one of the categories referred to Geneva Convention III as eligible for POW status upon capture."2 "Furthermore, in view of the mutually exclusive conception of the terms 'civilian' and 'combatant', the term 'unprivileged combatant' should be used exclusively for persons who are not civilians." 3 According to Geneva Convention, Addition Protocol I, Article 50(1), "a civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol." All persons in the cited provisions are armed forces entitled to POW status upon capture, or are POWs. The definitions are seamless. Armed Forces are defined, and civilians are defined as anyone not classified as armed forces. There can be no third category in International Law, encompassing non-combatants who are unlawful combatants. "Civilians, on the other hand, benefit from immunity against attack unless they are engaged in DPH. Of course, immunity from direct attack does not mean immunity from arrest and penal process."4 [DPH = Direct Participation in Hostilities] Which brings me to my question previously asked, but not answered. Under International Law, he may be classified as Armed Forces or Civilian. Civilians are those who do not enjoy POW status upon capture. The domestically invented category of unlawful combatant does not exist in International Law. As shown below, the Israeli High Court of Justice found "the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law." Talking of the legal definition, The Israeli court stated, "That definition is 'negative' in nature. It defines the concept of 'civilian' as the opposite of 'combatant'. It thus views unlawful combatants – who, as we have seen, are not 'combatants' – as civilians. The U.S. denies that any of al Qaeda or Taliban or the equivalent are entitled to POW status. If they are not entitled to POW status upon capture, International Law only permits them to be categorized as civilians. "The striking feature of the Protocol's definitions is that they follow a 'negative approach'. They do not tell us who or what the protected persons and objects are. They tell us who or what the rotected persons and objects are not. The negative character of the definitions 'is justified by the fact that the concepts of the civilian population and of the armed forces are only conceived in opposition to each other'. The benefit accruing from this approach is that there is no undistributed middle between the categories of combatants or military objectives and civilians or civilian objects.5 "The basic rule on direct participation in hostilities is clear: civilians are protected against direct attack 'unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities', first used in Article 3, GC I to IV." Protocol II of 1977 states, "Art 13. Protection of the civilian population … 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." "Terrorists: These practical problems may provoke ill-considered simplifications, such as asserting that the targeted person was a known or suspected 'terrorist' — a judicially undefined notion that is strictly irrelevant for the lawfulness of targeting under the paradigm of hostilities."6 Antonio Cassese, Expert Opinion, offered in Israel HCJ, PCATI v Israel, HCJ 769-02, pp. 19-20 of 20. Emphasis as in original. According to the fundamental distinction of international humanitarian law between combatants and civilians, only the fonner may constitute lawful objects of attack. However, if civilians take a direct part in hostilities, they may be targeted while they are actually engaging in combat, or while carrying arms openly during a military deployment preceding an attack in which they participate, or (exceptionally) if they are manifestly concealing on their own body the explosives they intend to use against enemy civilians or combatants and do not comply with a summons to show that they are innocent civilians not carrying arms. Both principles of international humanitarian law and military manuals lead to the conclusion that civilians may not be attacked while planning or preparing an attack or after committing it. In such cases, if suspected of directly engaging in military operations, they may be arrested. It has to be proved by judicial means, that is, through a proper trial, that they intended to commit an hostile act or had done so. In other words, suspected persons may be arrested in order to ascertain their responsibility, as is the case for other combatants who do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population, namely spies, saboteurs and irregular fighters. Such civilians unlawfully participating in armed hostilities may be tried and punished for war crimes. To hold that killing civilians suspected of terrorism, while they are not engaged in military action, is internationally lawful, would involve a blatant departure from the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. It would entail the undermining of the very foundation of that body of law, namely the distinction between combatants and civilians. Under current international humanitarian law and international criminal law attacking civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities may amount to a war crime. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf Targeted Killings case, Public Committee against Torture et al. v. The Government of Israel et al., Supreme Court of Israel Sitting as the High Court of Justice, 2006, Judgment issued December 13, 2006. At 16 et seq: Combatants At 17: "[A]s we have seen, the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law; they are not entitled to the status of prisoners of war; they can be put on trial for their membership in terrorist organizations and for their operations against the army." At 18: "That definition is "negative" in nature. It defines the concept of "civilian" as the opposite of "combatant". It thus views unlawful combatants – who, as we have seen, are not "combatants" – as civilians. Does that mean that the unlawful combatants are entitled to the same protection to which civilians who are not unlawful combatantsare entitled? The answer is, no. Customary international law regarding armedconflicts determines that a civilian taking a direct part in the hostilities does not, atsuch time, enjoy the protection granted to a civilian who is not taking a direct part inthe hostilities (see §51(3) of The First Protocol). The result is that an unlawfulcombatant is not a combatant, rather a "civilian". However, he is a civilian who is notprotected from attack as long as he is taking a direct part in the hostilities. Indeed, aperson's status as unlawful combatant is not merely an issue of the internal state penallaw. It is an issue for international law dealing with armed conflicts (see Jinks). It ismanifest in the fact that civilians who are unlawful combatants are legitimate targetsfor attack, and thus surely do not enjoy the rights of civilians who are not unlawfulcombatants, provided that they are taking a direct part in the hostilities at such time. Nor, as we have seen, do they enjoy the rights granted to combatants. Thus, for example, the law of prisoners of war does not apply to them." At 19 et seq: A Third Category: Unlawful combatants? At 20: "It is difficult for us to see how a third category can be recognized in the framework of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. It does not appear to us that we were presented with data sufficient to allow us to say, at the present time, that such athird category has been recognized in customary international law." At 22: "The basic approach is thus as follows: a civilian – that is, a person who doesnot fall into the category of combatant – must refrain from directly participating inhostilities (see FLECK, at p. 210). A civilian who violates that law and commits actsof combat does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct partin hostilities he does not enjoy – during that time – the protection granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject,without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war. True, his status is that of a civilian, and he does not lose that status while he is directly participating in hostilities. However, he is a civilian performing the functionof a combatant. As long as he performs that function, he is subject to the risks whichthat function entails and ceases to enjoy the protection granted to a civilian from attack...." At 23: "Civilians lose the protection against military attack, granted to them by customary international law dealing with international armed conflict (as adopted in The First Protocol, §51(3)), if "they take a direct part in hostilities". That provision differentiates between civilians taking a direct part in hostilities (from whom theprotection from attack is removed) and civilians taking an indirect part in hostilities (who continue to enjoy protection from attack). What is that differentiation? Asimilar provision appears in Common Article 3 of The Geneva Conventions, whichuses the wording "active part in hostilities". The judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda determined that these two terms are of identicalcontent (see The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, case no. ICTR-96-4-T (1998))." At 27: "In our opinion, the "direct" character of the part taken should not be narrowed merely to the personcommitting the physical act of attack. Those who have sent him, as well, take "a direct part". The same goes for the person who decided upon the act, and the person who planned it. It is not to be said about them that they are taking an indirect part in the hostilities. Their contribution is direct (and active)(see Schmitt, at p. 529)." At 27 et seq: The Third Part" "For Such Time" At 28: The burden of proof on the attacking army is heavy (see Kretzmer, at p. 203; GROSS at p. 606). In the case of doubt, careful verification is needed before an attack is made. At 40: "The result of that examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does notexist regarding those civilians "for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities" (§51(3) of The First Protocol). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no other less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians nearby are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportionate. That proportionality is determined according to a values based test, intended to balance between the military advantage and the civilian damage. As we have seen, we cannot determine that a preventative strike is always legal, just as we cannot determine that it is always illegal. All depends upon the question whether the standards of customary international law regarding international armed conflict allowthat preventative strike or not." At 40: 61. The State of Israel is fighting against severe terrorism, which plagues it from the area. The means at Israel's disposal are limited. The State determined that preventative strikes upon terrorists in the area which cause their deaths are a necessary means from the military standpoint. These strikes at times cause harm and even death to innocent civilians. These preventative strikes, with all the military importance they entail, must be made within the framework of the law. The saying "when the cannons roar, the muses are silent" is well known. A similar idea was expressed by Cicero, who said: "during war, the laws are silent" ( silent enim legisinter arma). Those sayings are regrettable. They reflect neither the existing law nor the desirable law (see Re. Application Under s.83.28 of the Criminal Code [2004] 2S.C.R. 248, 260). It is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws (see HCJ 168/91 Murkus v. The Minister of Defense , 45(1) PD 467, 470, hereinafter Murkus). Every struggle of the state – against terrorism or any other enemy – is conducted according to rules and law. There is always law which the state must comply with. There are no "black holes" (see JOHAN STEYN, DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW: SELECTED SPEECHES AND JUDGMENTS 195 (2004)). In this case, the law was determined by customary international law regarding conflicts of an international character. Indeed, the State's struggle against terrorism is not conducted "outside" of the law. It is conducted "inside" the law, with tools that the law places at the disposal of democratic states. - - - - - - - - - - 1 Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, reprinted 2010, p. 331. 2 Gary D. Solis, United States Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, 2010, page 542. 3 Melzer, supra at 1, p. 332, citing Israel, HCJ, PCATI v. Israel, §§ 26, 39. 4 ICRC/Asser, Report, Expert Meeting, Direct Participation in Hostilities, 2004, p. 17. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/2004-07-report-dph-2004-icrc.pdf 5 Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 123. 6 Melzer, supra at 1, p. 402.
Prosecutor v Delalic, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, IT-96-21 (16 Nov 1998), pp. 99-101, paragraphs 264-272. Dalalic prosecutor Teresa McHenry is the current Chief of the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section of the United States Department of Justice. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has "jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity" Note para 271. In international law, there is no such thing as an unlawful combatant who resides outside the law. Those not eligible for POW status upon capture are, by definition, civilians. 264. The law must be applied to the reality of the situation before us and thus, to reiterate, the relevant facts are as follows: - Upon the dissolution of the SFRY, an international armed conflict between, at least, the FRY and its forces and the authorities of the independent State of Bosnia and Herzegovina took place; - A segment of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Bosnian Serbs, declared their independence from that State and purported to establish their own Republic which would form part of the FRY; - The FRY armed and equipped the Bosnian Serb population and created its army, the VRS; - In the course of military operations in the Konjic municipality, being part of this international armed conflict, the Bosnian government forces detained Bosnian Serb men and women in the Celebici prison-camp. 265. Without yet entering the discussion of whether or not their detention was unlawful, it is clear that the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment were arrested and detained mainly on the basis of their Serb identity. As such, and insofar as they were not protected by any of the other Geneva Conventions, they must be considered to have been "protected persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as they were clearly regarded by the Bosnian authorities as belonging to the opposing party in an armed conflict and as posing a threat to the Bosnian State. 266. This interpretation of the Convention is fully in accordance with the development of the human rights doctrine which has been increasing in force since the middle of this century. It would be incongruous with the whole concept of human rights, which protect individuals from the excesses of their own governments, to rigidly apply the nationality requirement of article 4, that was apparently inserted to prevent interference in a State's relations with its own nationals. Furthermore, the nature of the international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina reflects the complexity of many modern conflicts and not, perhaps, the paradigm envisaged in 1949. In order to retain the relevance and effectiveness of the norms of the Geneva Conventions, it is necessary to adopt the approach here taken. As was recently stated by Meron, ____________________ 293 Commentary, p. 46 Case No.: IT-96-21T (ii) Were the Victims Prisoners of War? 267. Article 4(A) of the Third Geneva Convention sets rather stringent requirements for the achievement of prisoner of war status. Once again, this provision was drafted in light of the experience of the Second World War and reflects the conception of an international armed conflict current at that time. Thus, the various categories of persons who may be considered prisoners of war are narrowly framed. 268. In the present case, it does not appear to be contended that the victims of the acts alleged were members of the regular armed forces of one of the parties to the conflict, as defined in sub-paragraph 1 of the article. Neither, clearly, are sub-paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 applicable. Attention must, therefore, be focused on whether they were members of militias or volunteer corps belonging to a party which: (a) were commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) had a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; (c) carried arms openly; and (d) conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Alternatively, they could have constituted a levée en masse, that is, being inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously took up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, and at all times they carried arms openly and respected the laws and customs of war. 269. The Prosecution seeks to invoke the provisions of Additional Protocol I295 to interpret and clarify those of article 4(A)(2) and wishes to take a liberal approach to the detailed requirements that the sub-paragraph contains. Even should this be accepted, and despite the discussion above of the need to take a broad and flexible approach to the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, the Trial Chamber finds it difficult, on the evidence presented to it, to conclude that any of the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment satisfied these requirements. While it is apparent that some of the persons detained in the Celebici prison-camp had been in possession of weapons and may be considered to have participated to some degree in 'hostilities', this is not sufficient to render them entitled to prisoner of war status. There was clearly a Military Investigating Commission established in Konjic, tasked with categorising the Celebici detainees, but this can be regarded as related to the question of exactly what activities each detainee had been engaged in prior to arrest ____________________ 295 1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Victims of International Armed Conflicts (hereafter "Additional Protocol I"). Case No.: IT-96-21T and whether they posed a particular threat to the security of the Bosnian authorities. Having reached this conclusion, it is not even necessary to discuss the issue of whether the Bosnian Serbs detained in Celebici "belonged" to the forces of one of the parties to the conflict. 270. Similarly, the Trial Chamber is not convinced that the Bosnian Serb detainees constituted a levée en masse. This concept refers to a situation where territory has not yet been occupied, but is being invaded by an external force, and the local inhabitants of areas in the line of this invasion take up arms to resist and defend their homes. It is difficult to fit the circumstances of the present case, as described in Section II above, into this categorisation. The authorities in the Konjic municipality were clearly not an invading force from which the residents of certain towns and villages were compelled to resist and defend themselves. In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians. 271. It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that; 272. This position is confirmed by article 50 of Additional Protocol I which regards as civilians all persons who are not combatants as defined in article 4(A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention, and article 43 of the Protocol itself. ____________________ 296 Commentary, p. 51. Case No.: IT-96-21T
So you think that the 911 commission was a court?
[A K A Stone] So you think that the 911 commission was a court? There were no charges. Had it been a court, there would have been an dismissal based on a finding of insufficient evidence. "We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hamzi and Mihidar to reach a conclusion." That does not seem to justify a death sentence. The only appearances of the name Aulaqi in the 9/11 Report are on pages 221 and 229. The last sentence on 229 carries over to 230. It is difficult to see where it contains anything to justify an execution. - - -
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter? Does a murder investigation stop at the finding of the body?
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Now you're just flailing. Why should I care about a decision from the Israeli Supreme Court as I sit at my desk in NYC? Can you cite any decision from the US Supreme Court that binds the Commander in Chief of the United States of America to the decision of a court of another sovereign?
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
The AUMF that authorized the Commander in Chief to turn Al-Alwaki into bits of pink is dated 2001.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Hey slow boy. You still never answered what he did.
I have answered it several times on this thread. IN fact, yesterday I wrote a response to you that bottled the essence of the argument. Thanks for admitting you do not read.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
When two laws are in conflict, one constitutionally based e.g. powers of the Commander in Chief versus the other which is based upon a treaty, which one takes precedent?
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Here is your answer. This amendment came after any powers that the commander in chief had. So it would have amended any conflicts that you can make up and imagine. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Acts of war are not covered by the criminal code in the US. Again, had you read my response you'd understand the argument. Nolo believes that anyone allegedly out of uniform is a civilian even if he commits or conspires to commit acts of war.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
What acts of war? We have no declared war.
We declared war the moment that the Congress authorized military action and DumbDubv43 signed it into law on 9/18/01. That's what war is...military action. That said, there need not be a declared war for an act of war to be committed. It's not a necessary condition. If China bombed us we our immediate reaction would not be to arrest them.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
You have offered nothing more. Lawful executions required proof of guilt. The government never produced evidence to obtain an arrest warrant.
Why should I care about a decision from the Israeli Supreme Court as I sit at my desk in NYC? Can you cite any decision from the US Supreme Court that binds the Commander in Chief of the United States of America to the decision of a court of another sovereign? You should care about the Israeli decision because it accurately reflects the content and effect of International Law, just as does the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hamdan. You may recall that all of the GWB military tribunals were annihilated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and one of the bases was that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied and that the GWB nonsense was in violation of said Common Article 3 (as well as the U.S. constitution). U.S. Supreme Court held thatHamdan was entitled to the protection of Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and that it is not a conflict of an international character. It further found, "Even assuming that Hamden [sic - Hamdan] is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment." In 2006, the Bush administration "agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials." All enemy combatants, upon capture, are entitled to POW status. The Al Qaeda fighters are not classified as enemy combatants.
The citer of that proposition is brown up to his eyeballs.
How do you classify Aulaqi under international law? There are only two choices. Unlawful combatant is not either of them. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdan eliminates enemy combatant.
Comments (169 - 179) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Nolo is arguing that this action was not one undertaken by the POTUS as Commander In Chief but as a civilian executive.
#88. To: war (#85)
Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99
#101. To: war (#37)
[war #33] Please show me where "appropriate force" means "Shoot but not kill".
To give a more pointed edge to the legal position, it may be useful to compare two prominent instances of targeting enemy individuals in the course of World War II. In 1943, the US targeted the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Fleet, Admiral Yamamoto, whose plane was ambushed (subsequent to the successful breaking of the Japanese communication codes) and shot down over Bougainville.635 This was a faultless targeted killing. In contrast, the ambush of the car of SS General Heydrich in 1942 amounted to an exercise in unlawful combatancy. Heydrich — as a military officer — was a lawful target, just like Yamamoto. Still, the act constituted unlawful combatancy, since Heydrich was killed by members of the Free Czechoslovak army (parachuted from London) who were not wearing uniforms (see supra 99)636
Moreover, the fact that CIA operatives are most likely to coordinate targeted killings using the drone is also problematic. Since these operatives themselves do not conform to the laws of war, by failing to wear distinctive insignia and by not carrying arms openly, they may be subject to prosecution for war crimes.
#129. To: Biff Tannen (#126)
#130. To: war (#118)
[war #118] You believe that the planes did not bring down the Towers. You dwell in the land of the Moonbat.
#2. To: continental op (#0)
[Alexander Cockburn] No, shout the conspiracists, they “pancaked” because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges in the preceding days inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom–party to mass murder–have held their tongues ever since.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
#131. To: war (#117)
Byrd's speech is BUT ONE OF 535. McCain was in that same chamber during that same time and during that same "debate". Oddly, you are dismissive of what McCain stated what he believed was the affect of his "AYE" vote. Why is that?
There is no current treaty or law which would internally sanction the act of a US Commander In Chief for what you claim is ignnoring international convention.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
#88. To: war (#85)
Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99
#132. To: nolu chan (#127)
(Edited)
When war stops making up facts, I'll stop documenting it. If you don't like it, don't read it. You are always welcome to put me on bozo.
#133. To: war (#132)
You've not made the case in any way, shape or recognizable form that this targeted killing of a high value military target was extra-legal.
#134. To: A K A Stone (#133)
#135. To: nolu chan (#127)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#136. To: war (#134)
You still haven't answered what specifically the guy did and the documentation. Why is that? Because you are full of shit that is why.
#137. To: Biff Tannen (#135)
And, ya, I already don't read it. Too many words, dude.
#138. To: A K A Stone (#137)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#139. To: Biff Tannen (#138)
You can pick out a bullshitter from his presentation, rather than sifting thru a ton of information.
#140. To: A K A Stone, nolo chan (#136)
You haven't answered that.
#141. To: A K A Stone (#139)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#142. To: Biff Tannen, war (#141)
War's not a bullshitter. Sometimes he's full of shit...
#143. To: Biff Tannen (#141)
(Edited)
But lately war beats pretty much everyone. Like a rented mule.
#144. To: Biff Tannen, nolu chan (#126)
Enough with the spamming.
#145. To: war (#143)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#146. To: Liberator (#142)
Feint[sicco] praise indeed.
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#147. To: Biff Tannen (#146)
...and I doubt war's looking for it....
#148. To: war (#132)
Did you actually READ the entire section from which you culled this one snippet?
#149. To: nolu chan (#148)
#150. To: war, A K A Stone (#140)
#151. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#140)
Nolo tries to make the case that any military action undertaken by agents and officers of the CIA violate various rules and protocols of war to which the US is a signatory.
19. Substantial parts of international law dealing with armed conflicts are of customary character. That customary law is part of Israeli law, "by force of the State of Israel's existence as a sovereign and independent state"
[T]he laws of armed conflict are entrenched in 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, hereinafter The First Protocol). Israel is not party to that protocol, and it was not enacted in domestic Israeli legislation. Of course, the customary provisions of The First Protocol are part of Israeli law.
IN other words, he avers that the CIA cannot engage in military actions without citing any US LAW so forbiding.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
Where do you classify al-Aulaqi according to the Laws of War?
SUMMARY
40. These examples point out the dilemma which the "for such time"requirement presents before us. On the one hand, a civilian who took a directpart in hostilities once, or sporadically, but detached himself from them(entirely, or for a long period) is not to be harmed. On the other hand, the "revolving door" phenomenon, by which each terrorist has "horns of the alter" (1 Kings 1:50) to grasp or a "city of refuge" (Numbers 35:11) to flee to, to which he turns in order to rest and prepare while they grant him immunity from attack, is to be avoided ( see Schmitt, at p. 536; Watkin, at p. 12; Kretzmer, at p. 193; DINSTEIN, at p. 29; and Parks, at p. 118). In the wide area between those two possibilities, one finds the "gray" cases, about which customary international law has not yet crystallized. There is thus no escaping examination of each and every case. In that context, the following four things should be said: first, well based information is needed before categorizing a civilian as falling into one of the discussed categories. Innocent civilians are not to be harmed (see CASSESE, at p. 421). Information which has been most thoroughly verified is needed regarding the identity and activity of the civilian who is allegedly taking part in the hostilities (see Ergi v. Turkey, 32 EHRR 388 (2001). CASSESE rightly stated that –
"[I]f a belligerent were allowed to fire at enemy civilianssimply suspected of somehow planning or conspiring to planmilitary attacks, or of having planned or directed hostileactions, the basic foundations of international humanitarianlaw would be seriously undermined. The basic distinction between civilians and combatants would be called into question and the whole body of law relating to armedconflict would eventually be eroded" (p. 421).
Conclusion
#152. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#140)
"[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."
[i]n interpreting the law, our goal should be to avoid paralyzing the legal process as much as possible and, in the case of humanitarian conventions, to enable them to serve their protective goals.294
294 Meron, p. 239.
16 November 1998
16 November 1998
[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution - not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view. 296
16 November 1998
#153. To: war (#140)
Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki
#154. To: A K A Stone (#153)
[war] Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki
#155. To: nolu chan (#154)
It is difficult to see where it contains anything to justify an execution.
#156. To: nolu chan (#151)
(Edited)
This legal bullshit spewed by war is such bullshit that I will rebut it with the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice.
#157. To: nolu chan (#152)
(Edited)
Prosecutor v Delalic, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, IT-96-21 (16 Nov 1998), pp. 99-101, paragraphs 264- 272.
#158. To: war (#155)
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter?
#159. To: A K A Stone (#158)
You still never answered what he did.
#160. To: nolu chan (#151)
Neither the U.S., nor anyone else, gets an exemption from international law which has been adopted as general custom and practice. The targeting nation does not need to sign anything to come under the constraints of international law as they would be applied to action against a target.
#161. To: war (#160)
When two laws are in conflict, one constitutionally based e.g. powers of the Commander in Chief versus the other which is based upon a treaty, which one takes precedent?
#162. To: A K A Stone (#161)
#163. To: war (#162)
Acts of war are not covered by the criminal code in the US. Again
#164. To: A K A Stone (#163)
(Edited)
What acts of war? We have no declared war.
#165. To: war (#155)
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter? Does a murder investigation stop at the finding of the body?
#166. To: war (#156)
Now you're just flailing.
#167. To: war (#157)
The AUMF that authorized the Commander in Chief to turn Al-Alwaki into bits of pink is dated 2001.
#168. To: war, A K A Stone (#159)
I have answered it several times on this thread. IN fact, yesterday I wrote a response to you that bottled the essence of the argument.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]