They are shooting at us. We are shooting at them. He was recruiting people to shoot at us, and some did. He was continuing this activity and so were we. The heat of battle is irrelevant. When we identify someone as an enemy through their actions, we no longer have to consider them to be anything but an enemy, and we can kill them whenever we can. If he surrendered and he was killed, I’d be outraged, but he didn’t. He died in the same manner as almost every other soldier in a war does.
Do you believe that foreign combatants are afforded some type of due process before they are shot at? Does due process always involve a judicial hearing?
No.
I believe it should.
And how do “we” determine that this person is an enemy? That’s the issue. Not what we do afterwards.
This is likely as close to an answer as I’m going to get. It’s a good answer, though.
First, you presupposed he was deprived of due process, but I don’t think it’s clear what, if any, he was supposed to have received, nor is it clear what he did in fact receive (to determine whether he was deprived). But that’s more important in a US citizen vs. non-citizen debate (like the Pit thread).
I’m interested in intentionally killing people outside of a war and what crime is committed when that happens. However, while I’m trying not to talk about a battlefield, I guess it’s inevitable and might help us move past it. For legal purposes, it’s a question of fact. Or, the situation has to actually resemble a “battlefield.” You can’t just declare something a battlefield that’s obviously not (what the ACLU, the linked article, most people agree with). Conversely, you can’t say something’s not a battlefield, when the facts on the ground resemble one. The laws of war apply during an armed conflict, human rights/criminal law apply when there is not an armed conflict.
So, the AUMF can’t declare the “whole world” a battlefield and make it so. The facts must make it so. So, obviously, what is the definition of battlefield (technically, armed conflict)…there is none. We know what a classic one looks like…We know this one doesn’t resemble a classic battlefield. Here are some factors I’ve read tod determine an armed conflict (vs law enforcement situation)…If it’s an internal struggle that rises to the level of conflict, without conflict between two states (non-international armed conflict), then: Are the rebels (AQ) Organized? Is it just sporadic crime or systematic? Do the rebels/AQ control Territory (or control non-Gov’t groups that do)? The Gov’t response to this (law enforcement or military)? Ect.
I think where this guy was killed in Yemen rises to an armed conflict. The linked article does not. So, even though the AUMF authorizes to the President to kill a specific enemy, that core principle of killing as a measure of first resort is only allowed in an armed conflict; which is a question of fact determined by on the ground circumstances. That’s the pre-9/11 analysis anyways. Obviously, I’m fairly confident the President does not follow these factors, but rather kills the enemy wherever found whether it happens during an armed conflict or not (see OBL); albiet with some limiting factors, but those are not exactly public knowledge; but he does “vet” to make sure they are in fact the enemy.
So the question, if outside an armed conflict/battlefield, what crime is committed, if any? Can he rely on his legal advisers that said the enemy was located in an armed conflict when killed or that their status alone makes them a walking armed conflict zone/eligible to be killed?
I’m genuinely interested in what exactly is unlawful.
He was actively recruiting people to shoot at us, and in direct contact with those who did, and he has stated pretty clearly that he is our enemy. I don’t see any ambiguity in this case.
The 5th Amendment says that “No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” From where do you derive that a a US citizen in another country is a person, but a foreign person in another country is not a person?
Er… enemy combatants don’t have to be a present danger, armed, or even conscious to be killed.
It’s perfectly permissible under the laws of war to shoot a sleeping enemy.
According to the laws of war, until they surrender(and they don’t even need to be given the option of surrendering).
I’m also not sure where this meme about “the battlefield” came from in that other thread.
It doesn’t matter where the person was killed if they were an enemy combatant.
The killing of Yamamoto, far away from anything remotely resembling a battlefield settled that question.
No one watching the Dirty Dozen screamed those men were engaged in a war crime because they killed a number of German officers and their girlfriends at a resort far away from anything that could be considered “the battlefield”.
Before anyone starts insisting those cases are irrelevant because they involved the army of a nation state, keep in mind the US killed numerous members of the NLF/VC who were not actively shooting at the US or “on the battlefield”. I.E. snipers shooting an accused NLF/VC officer while he was eating breakfast.
The distinctions have never been about where the killings took place but if the person belonged to a group fighting(regardless of whether or not they actively took part in combatant which is why messengers in WWI and WWII were such high value targets) and if they weren’t attempting to surrender(again they don’t need to be given the chance to surrender).
A foreigner in a foreign country is neither subject to the laws of the US nor protected by the US constitution. He does not have the right to free speech, religion, or due process, except as afforded by his own government. We do not have jurisdiction over that person.
So, as long as we read about these things in the newspaper, it’s OK to assassinate him?
Here you go, Mace. It’s about.com but it’s a good summary and I’m in a hurry.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-4.htm
IN short, to be accorded Geneva convention protection these standards need to apply:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
If those and some other standards (War correspondent, supply, what-have-you) don’t apply then they are not entitled to protection. Francs-Tireurs have been treated summarily for more than 100 years. Possibly back to Napoleon.
The point, I believe other people are making (in general, not in in this thread), is that there has to be “hostilities” or an armed conflict for these so called combatants (terrorists) to be taking apart in. Some people do not consider terrorist acts to rise to the level of that type of hostility. Thus there is no “battlefield” or armed conflict even occurring. So they are not combatants…cannot be shot while asleep, ect. All your examples present clear situations of hostilities.
I do not hold that view…so don’t, umm, shoot the messenger. That’s the argument, though, that’s why it’s important.
While time is making it more concrete, it’s not settled that terrorist organizations can take part in armed conflicts and thus be combatants. Many people/organizations say they cannot.
I wasn’t criticizing you. I was responding to John Mace’s claim.
I was pointing out that people were improperly using the term “battlefield”.
Moreover “terrorist group” is a loaded and frankly useless term.
It could just as easily have applied to the NLF during the Vietnam War.
Wouldn’t arbitrary executing that person, according to provisions in our laws, be exercising some form of jurisdiction?
No, but let’s stick to this case. Do you think the newspaper reports have exagerrated his actions? I think the opposite to be true, in this case. And I have been referring to this case, not others. This is not a precedent for assassinating anyone we don’t like, it’s a clear cut case of a US citizen taking up arms against the US in a war.
A person can not declare war. Yes he is a citizen. There are procedures for removing citizens rights. Your right wing ideology is not one of them.
I’m quite familiar with that part. But I wanted to see the part that says that " Those designated as such are subject to summary execution". The GCs ended lots of things that had been done previously. Link.
I know you weren’t criticizing, I was just responding to this whole battlefield debate and you had the best post to use as a jumping off point.
I mean, you do agree that there was to be some level of activity that rises to the necessary level of hostilities. If not, then it’s just criminal activity. As long as there is, then you can kill the enemy in a classic firefight, or asleep in their bed.
Er… How does a US citizen become an “enemy combatant”, no longer afforded the protection of habius corpus? Especially in light of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Here’s what I think: I think I want the judicial branch of the federal government to decide that before we kill someone. I think I don’t want to invest that power solely in the hands of the president. I think the judicial branch is perfectly capable of putting someone like al-Awlaki in the “kill or capture” category.