Are they posing an imminent threat to others through their actions?
Their location is irrelevant as is their status because police can shoot civilians in defence of others.
2) Are they directing forces on the battlefield?
Their location should be irrelevant because they’re engaging in the hostilities and are thereby always a legitimate target.
Are they on a battlefield?
Their location is relevant since obviously they must be on a battlefield at the very least.
4) Are they in a location that would provide a direct military advantage?
This seems to be incidental rather than direct targeted killing.
So you’re proposing that there may be a fifth ground in which a person can be directly targeted via a military operation which is based on their status as a combatant.
I have major issues with this ground because it is too broad and makes it possible to kill unarmed soldiers anywhere in the world merely on the grounds that they are technically “combatants”. So would you qualify this ground at all? For example must it be proven that they’re armed when they’re killed? Must it be proven that they will participate in existing hostilities?
Jesus, dude, if all you know about the laws of war is based upon browsing Wikipedia for the last day or so, and then barfing up a bunch of half-ignorant opinions, just stop posting to this thread.
I think this has already been discussed in this thread earlier, but anyways. You’re claiming a commander of a detainee camp, cannot be targeted, even though you agree he is taking part in the hostilities. Think it through. You’re apart of the opposing forces, you want to free the detainees (not blow them up), if only you were allowed to kill the commander and guards at the base to accomplish that mission, but alas. The only way to free them is to send them all to heaven.
The only combatants that take part in hostilities that cannot be targeted are medics and chaplains. Every other enemy combatant is free game. The key word of enemy combatant…enemy. You can kill your enemy.
He’s right. The way it works is there is a presumption you can kill the enemy who is taking part in the hostilities. What the Hague Convention, and now Geneva Conventions do, is say the right to kill your enemy is not unlimited. Those conventions list all the limitations. That’s what your link says.
Come on now, do I now need to tell you to get educated and read a lots and lots of books on what exactly Charles Manson did and the degree of his involvement with the conspiracy to commit murder?
Clearly, Charles Manson is not in jail because his freedom of speech was violated but rather, his extensive involvement and specific actions and words about specific people that were murdered.
Which brings me to a question about Awlaki - is there any evidence of his specific involvement in any terrorist attack at the similar degree with which Manson was involved with Tate murders?
I mean it’s one thing to be “inspired” - Manson himself was inspired by a Beatles song - and quite another to conspire to a specific detail about an attack that is deemed a terrorist attack.
So, is he really just some big mouthed a-hole or really a significant logistics, training, planning and support pillar?
I didn’t agree he was taking part in the hostilities.. where did I say that?
Targeting the camp to capture it is a military objective and therefore a legitimate military target along with those who guard it. They all become targets IF gitmo is a legitimate target.
I’m merely opposing a claim (whether you made it or not) that “combatants” not engaged in hostilities can be killed for any reason anywhere on earth.
I’m not proposing anything. I’m making it easy by using the US military as the example; and somehow you’re saying US soldiers cannot be targeted. I think you’re failing to grasp some basic principles, while focusing on other detailed ones.
Of course there is because hostilities includes being on the battlefield, directing forces on the battlefield or being in a location which is a legitimate military target.
Hostilities does not include merely existing as a soldier somewhere on earth. That’s ridiculous.
There is no principle that the world is automatically a battleground where soldiers can be targeted anywhere just because you’re at war with another group or state.
You cannot attack a US embassy and thereby its occupants just because there are soldiers inside because it is not necessarily a military target even though there are combatants there.
The principle of military necessity. Would attacking that target help bring your enemy into submission. Just distinguish between military and civilian.
You’ve named a basic principle, that a person or object be a valid military objective. You just keep focusing on the object part, though. I pointed you to Art. 51. So, if neither the soldiers nor the Embassy would give you a military advantage, then don’t attack, if they do, do. If there’s civilians, take extra precautions we don’t need to go into now. There are other principles too, but it doesn’t matter if you don’t grasp the fact you can target soldiers who are taking part in the hostilities (running a detainee camp) but are away from a battlefield (Cuba).
Those in uniform are always combatants, no matter where they are or what they are doing, up until the moment they are hors de combat – like if a sailor’s ship sinks, or a pilot has to parachute out of a burning airplane, or a soldier raises his hands in surrender, or a Marine lays wounded on the ground. Otherwise, anyone in a military is a valid target, no matter whether they are sound asleep, have their back towards you, or even hiding in a school, hospital or mosque.
However, if an attack is to be conducted on a designated protected place (like a hospital), the necessity of the attack has to be carefully weighed against the risk to civilians, historical edifices, or other items of humanitarian interest, and the use of force must be strictly limited. (See page 9 of the link.)
The use of force against civilian buildings and places that are not protected (like someone’s house or place of business) is allowed, but the use of force must be proportional to the military benefit of the attack. (See page 8.) Things like carpet bombing an entire apartment complex because of one sniper is obviously not proportional, but using a rocket launcher to destroy a portion of a house because of one sniper would almost certainly be lawful.
However, IF the attack would give a direct military advantage and the loss of civilian life is not disproportionate to the advantage gained then it is lawful to attack them of course.
Similarly as article 51 establishes
“3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”
This illustrates that location and actions determine whether the attack is legitimate notwithstanding the status of those being attacked.
Going back to article 52 paragraph 2 it is clear that “Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives”.
Also 1. “Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.”
Article 52 is about location rather than status.
Therefore, an attack in Yemen which is a location where no military advantage to be gained per se would not be lawful.
I agree with you up to the point of them hiding in a school or hospital.
They are legitimate targets not for the fact that they are combatants as much as the fact that they are likely posing an imminent threat to others.
It is a matter of location and actions. If someone is an imminent threat then this trumps everything i.e. it doesn’t matter where they are or what status they have.
Under article 51 civilians taking part in the hostilities can be targeted.
However, if they’re not an imminent threat, they’re not taking actively part in the hostilities then it becomes purely a matter of location.
Were they killed as part of an attack on a military object? If they were it wouldn’t matter if they were civilians in a munitions factory or soldiers in their barracks.
Well there’s a presumption that what is not a military object is a civilian object and therefore cannot be attacked.
But obviously your example of the sniper trumps that because they are clearly an imminent threat to others.
Basically what I’m gathering from international law is this:
Under article 51 of the UN Charter, all states may act in self-defence and this goes without saying irrespective of where an attack is coming from.
So whether its on the battlefield or from a hospital, you can use proportional force to neutralize the threat. Am I correct so far?
You can also target ANYONE, civilian or combatant, taking part in the hostilities as article 51 of protocol 1 confirms.
However, if it is not an act of self-defence or those taking part in the hostilities then I would argue location becomes relevant.
Pursuant to article 52 of protocol 1 you can attack any location that would bring a direct military advantage provided the loss of civilian life is not disproportionate to the advantage gained.
So for example you can blow up a munitions factory with civilian workers.
So far it seems all the justifications for killing are based on actions and location not on status of itself… Unless I’m completely missing a fundamental piece of law.
So yes I’m not denying that al-Awlaki may be a “combatant” but I am contesting that he can automatically be killed anywhere on Earth.
If the definition of combatant requires that they’re participating in a military operation then I would still argue he wasn’t participating in any military operation when he was killed and is therefore not technically a combatant on that definition.
You’re getting several things mixed up. The concept of imminent threat isn’t really applicable to LOAC for the grunts on the battlefield. It is an important concept for countries. What the UN Charter says are the rules for countries does not translate into laws that grunts must abide by.
Note once again that civilians are NOT immune to attack, nor are their houses. Attacks on civilians or civilian places simply have to be proportional to the military advantage being sought.
Protected places are privileged from attack unless they are being used by combatants. So, yes, an opposing army absolutely may kill a combatant hiding in a mosque or hospital - but the judgment exercised on how to attack the fighter must be extremely conservative. Blowing up part of a civilian’s house to kill a sniper may be perfectly lawful, but it is hard to imagine that blowing up part of a hospital could be justified. Sending in some troops to clear the hospital, however, would probably be acceptable.
Sorry I can’t comment on some of your other questions - I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re asking.
So yes I’m not denying that al-Awlaki may be a “combatant” but I am contesting that he can automatically be killed anywhere on Earth.
If the definition of combatant requires that they’re participating in a military operation then I would still argue he wasn’t participating in any military operation when he was killed and is therefore not technically a combatant on that definition.
Yup I understand, it has to be a military object in the sense that a military advantage can be gained.
However, drawing this back to al-Awlaki, what was the military advantage to be gained by launching a drone attack on an undisclosed location in Yemen?
The focus in article 52 is the advantage gained from the nature of the object i.e. it appears to be a location-based test rather than a test purely on the basis of the persons being targeted.
Hence blowing up a munitions factory with civilian workers is justified not because of who is in there but because of the military advantage to be gained by attacking a place of that nature.