Is President Obama a Mass Murderer?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Ravenman

I don’t understand what hair you are trying to split. If someone is actively in the fight, they are a legitimate military target and can be killed. Once they are out of the fight, such as if they lay down their weapons and surrender, or they are captured, they cannot be executed except in consequence of a decision by a competent court under normal processes.

That’s the exact hair I wanted to split: this guy didn’t surrender and hadn’t been captured, and so can be killed.

[Ravenman]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

That’s the exact hair I wanted to split: this guy didn’t surrender and hadn’t been captured, and so can be killed.

Gotcha. That has nothing to do with summary execution.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

Gotcha. That has nothing to do with summary execution.

Exactly. I think Waldo didn’t follow the debate we were having with Jonathan back to his original post back on page 1:

From post #7 by Jonathan:

Mightn’t such be considered as franc-tireurs? People involved in the conflict who are not in uniform for the purposes of deceit? Those designated as such are subject to summary execution when captured…

Emphasis added. This violates the GCs.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@John_Mace

Exactly. I think Waldo didn’t follow the debate we were having with Jonathan back to his original post back on page 1:

From post #7 by Jonathan:

Mightn’t such be considered as franc-tireurs? People involved in the conflict who are not in uniform for the purposes of deceit? Those designated as such are subject to summary execution when captured…

Emphasis added. This violates the GCs.

“This” still refers to the specific killing in question, à la post #1, right? Which involved someone who hadn’t surrendered and hadn’t been captured, someone who wasn’t sick and wasn’t wounded? I simply don’t see how any of the asides are relevant; I merely see that Chance in post #7 immediately went on to add that “personnel of an enemy are subject to killing under the laws of war”, sure as he later mentioned the relevant lack of a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance – sure as Ravenman mentioned the irrelevant point about “any wounded or sick person”, sure as you mentioned the irrelevant point about “persons taking no active part in the hostilities”.

“This” involved a guy who was neither wounded or sick when the missiles were heading for him and his. “This” involved a guy who’d neither surrendered nor been captured. “This”, as far as I can tell, therefore violates none of the GCs yet mentioned in the thread.

[CoolHandCox]

@Ravenman

There is no crime. It is just that simple.

…

The idea that the AUMF did not authorize what the plain text of it authorizes (to attack Al Qaeda and its supports anywhere to prevent future acts of international terrorism) is a proposition based on shouldas, couldas, and wannas. The law says what it means and it means what it says: the President is authorized to attack enemies, and that makes it all constitutionally legal. It follows, of course, that if the President does something that is constitutional, congressionally authorized, and carried out within the scope of those authorities, it cannot be illegal.

I think the ACLU argument, is, there is no Armed Conflict in Yemen or with AQAP. The AUMF can’t make that so (it’s not a declaration of war). Because of that, you can’t kill people with drones outside an armed conflict unless they are an imminent threat and there is no other reasonable means left (i.e., the law enforcement model - the classic hostage situation).

So the question is, is there an Armed Conflict occurring with AQAP. I think there is, because there is, not because the AUMF authorizes the President to kill such people. Congress empowered him to do it, if he can legally do it (there must be an armed conflict occurring for this type of targeted killing). Surely an authorization to kill CoolHandCox does not mean I’m now somehow in an armed conflict with the United States. Am I thinking this through, right?

[John_Mace]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

“This” still refers to the specific killing in question, à la post #1, right? Which involved someone who hadn’t surrendered and hadn’t been captured, someone who wasn’t sick and wasn’t wounded? I simply don’t see how any of the asides are relevant; I merely see that Chance in post #7 immediately went on to add that “personnel of an enemy are subject to killing under the laws of war”, sure as he later mentioned the relevant lack of a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance – sure as Ravenman mentioned the irrelevant point about “any wounded or sick person”, sure as you mentioned the irrelevant point about “persons taking no active part in the hostilities”.

“This” involved a guy who was neither wounded or sick when the missiles were heading for him and his. “This” involved a guy who’d neither surrendered nor been captured. “This”, as far as I can tell, therefore violates none of the GCs yet mentioned in the thread.

Whatever point you are trying to make, and I really don’t know what it is, the only point I am making in the side discussion I was having with Jonathan is that he is wrong when he said, in post #7, that we can summarily execute someone we capture. We can’t, legally, under any circumstances.

This doesn’t apply to al-Awlaki, since he wasn’t captured, but JC still made the claim about what we could do if we had captured him, and that was wrong.

[ralph124c]

Shoot-why don’t we just give the CIA the “license to kill”…like James Bond had!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@John_Mace

Whatever point you are trying to make, and I really don’t know what it is, the only point I am making in the side discussion I was having with Jonathan is that he is wrong when he said, in post #7, that we can summarily execute someone we capture. We can’t, legally, under any circumstances.

This doesn’t apply to al-Awlaki, since he wasn’t captured, but JC still made the claim about what we could do if we had captured him, and that was wrong.

As long as we’re in violent agreement about how this doesn’t apply to al-Awlaki, Francs-tireurs - Wikipedia.

Before the two World Wars, the term Franc-tireur was sometimes used for an armed fighter who, if captured, was not necessarily entitled to prisoner of war status. An issue of disagreement at the 1899 Hague Conference, the controversy generated the Martens Clause. The Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise between the Great Powers, who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture, and smaller states, who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.[5][6]

After World War II, during the Hostages Trial (or, officially, 'The United States of America vs. Wilhelm List, et al.), the seventh of the Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that, on the question of partisans, according to the then-current laws of war (the Hague Convention No. IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention.[7] In relation to Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated:

We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans...[7]

The Geneva Conventions established new protocols, namely, according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Is that no longer in effect? As JC mentioned, this guy at no point met the “have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” criterion – and so “upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty” if he’s a franc-tireur who isn’t entitled to prisoner-of-war status, no?

[TriPolar]

@John_Mace

This doesn’t apply to al-Awlaki, since he wasn’t captured, but JC still made the claim about what we could do if we had captured him, and that was wrong.

That part we agree on. The Bush administration used claims like that, but I don’t think there is any positive justification.

Outside of that, I see congress funding this activity as a sufficient declaration of war, and Awlaki’s actions to qualify as active combat. Do you feel those conditions are not satisfied? (or are you covering all this in the pit? I’ve haven’t read that yet).

[Ravenman]

@CoolHandCox

So the question is, is there an Armed Conflict occurring with AQAP. I think there is, because there is, not because the AUMF authorizes the President to kill such people. Congress empowered him to do it, if he can legally do it (there must be an armed conflict occurring for this type of targeted killing).

I agree entirely.

Surely an authorization to kill CoolHandCox does not mean I’m now somehow in an armed conflict with the United States. Am I thinking this through, right?

I’m not quite sure I understand this part of your post. If Congress passes a use of force authorization that says that the President is authorized to attack you or an organization that you are part of, then yes, I’d say that you are involved in an armed conflict with the US Government.

The part about the whole “the US must only use lethal force on the battlefield” argument I just fail to understand is the idea that a battlefield only exists when two parties agree that war may be conducted within a geographical area. It reminds me of the legends about the setpiece battles of the 18th century, in which generals would agree that the fighting would commence at 8am on the field of battle just outside of the village of Westerwaugh, and that if decisive advantage is not secured by 5pm, there shall be a day’s rest before resumption of hostilities, and the general public is invited to watch for neighboring hillsides.

I contend that the battlefield is any area where violence occurs. If one party attacks another party on the sea, that’s a battlefield. If a party ambushes another at their headquarters, that’s a battlefield. If there’s a sneak attack on a facility a thousand miles from the front lines, that facility is now part of the battlefield. The parties to a conflict don’t have to define or agree on where the battlefield exists in order to allow hostilities to then take place upon them.

Why do I take this view? Because international law prescribes limits on behavior on “the battlefield.” For example, those wounded “on the battlefield” are entitled to succor. Pillaging is not permitted on “the battlefield.” If we are to decide that, say, Yemen is not part of the “battlefield,” then I believe we are creating a loophole by which all sorts of unacceptable behavior would be validated. “Sure, we can execute prisoners… because they were not on the battlefield! Sure, we can pillage this town… it’s not on the battlefield, so the laws of war don’t apply!”

That’s completely and totally morally wrong.

[gonzomax]

I am glad so many of you feel it is right for the government to kill an American citizen for the exercising of speech.
I suppose Glen Beck should be worried now.

[CoolHandCox]

@Ravenman

I’m not quite sure I understand this part of your post. If Congress passes a use of force authorization that says that the President is authorized to attack you or an organization that you are part of, then yes, I’d say that you are involved in an armed conflict with the US Government.

The part about the whole “the US must only use lethal force on the battlefield” argument I just fail to understand is the idea that a battlefield only exists when two parties agree that war may be conducted within a geographical area.

Let’s not talk about battlefield.

My question is, the day Congress passes the authorization to use military force against CoolHandCox, is there an armed conflict occurring at that moment? Or does there have to be actual fighting for there to be an armed conflict? I do not think an authorization, standing alone, is enough to trigger an armed conflict (whereas a declaration of war, standing alone, would).

[Marley23]

@gonzomax

I am glad so many of you feel it is right for the government to kill an American citizen for the exercising of speech.

Repeating an assertion does not turn it into an argument. Read about what al-Awlaki actually did and you’ll have a stronger basis for talking about him.

[CoolHandCox]

Just to follow up my own post, the reason it’s important is, if the actual hostilities between AQAP and US do not rise to an armed conflict, this guy cannot be targeted unless he is an imminent threat.

[Ravenman]

@CoolHandCox

My question is, the day Congress passes the authorization to use military force against CoolHandCox, is there an armed conflict occurring at that moment? Or does there have to be actual fighting for there to be an armed conflict? I do not think an authorization, standing alone, is enough to trigger an armed conflict (whereas a declaration of war, standing alone, would).

I think most experts would tell you that yes, an intention to initiate an armed conflict is sufficient to establish the presence of an armed conflict. But really, it’s a chicken-or-the-egg question: the laws of war pertain to the interaction of two (or more) parties. I am having a difficult time thinking of how the law of war really matters if someone isn’t actually attacking someone else, but has announced an intention to do so at a later date.

In any case, the Army Field Manual on the Law of Land Warfare does indeed state that armed conflict would begin with the authorization for war:

8. Situations to Which Law of War Applicable
   a. Types of Hostilities. War may be defined as a legal condition of armed hostility between States. While it is usually accompanied by the commission of acts of violence, a state of war may exist prior to or subsequent to the use of force. The outbreak of war is usually accompanied by a declaration of war (see par. 20).

Link.

[Ravenman]

@CoolHandCox

Just to follow up my own post, the reason it’s important is, if the actual hostilities between AQAP and US do not rise to an armed conflict, this guy cannot be targeted unless he is an imminent threat.

No. The use of state-sanctioned violence against others in an international context is the definition of armed conflict. If a state uses military force against someone else, it is an armed conflict. There’s no loophole by which we may attack or invade someone and not be in an armed conflict.

(However, the laws on how that armed conflict must be conducted may differ depending on the character of the conflict: state on state, civil war, state on non-state agent, etc.)

[CoolHandCox]

@Ravenman

I think most experts would tell you that yes, an intention to initiate an armed conflict is sufficient to establish the presence of an armed conflict. But really, it’s a chicken-or-the-egg question: the laws of war pertain to the interaction of two (or more) parties. I am having a difficult time thinking of how the law of war really matters if someone isn’t actually attacking someone else, but has announced an intention to do so at a later date.

In any case, the Army Field Manual on the Law of Land Warfare does indeed state that armed conflict would begin with the authorization for war:
Link.

Technically that says declaration, not authorization. Those really are two different things. I think a declaration is “an intention to initiate an armed conflict.” It’s very formal. Whereas an authorization is just Congress empowering the president to use force, if he so chooses.

Outside of actual attacking, loac matters in an occupation. It matters in diplomatic relationships. It doesn’t matter in this debate, though.

@Ravenman

No. The use of state-sanctioned violence against others in an international context is the definition of armed conflict. If a state uses military force against someone else, it is an armed conflict. There’s no loophole by which we may attack or invade someone and not be in an armed conflict.

(However, the laws on how that armed conflict must be conducted may differ depending on the character of the conflict: state on state, civil war, state on non-state agent, etc.)

I think there has to be a little more to it than just us attacking, but our response does have a lot to do with it. I think the other side needs to be fighting, too, and their “fight” has to rise to acts of war (not just criminal stuff). So, in this case, they tried to blow up civilian airliners, ect. That, to me, is an act of war. Our retaliation with military force pushes it into an armed conflict. He is thus an enemy combatant and can be targeted for killing without being an imminent threat.

I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that more people would not agree that you can be in an armed conflict with AQAP. And if you are not, then this was unlawful and, back to the OP, what exactly was unlawful about it. John Mace said it would be a due process violation. I agree. But surely there is a crime, or at least logically it was a premeditated unlawful killing outside an armed conflict (whether a President could be technically be convicted of any criminal activities or not, whatever, he still committed the crime, he is just immune from being prosecuted).

But, oh well. You and I are on the same page, you’re just the only one really discussing it (albeit the wrong side I want to debate). For fun, if you assume this is not or cannot be an armed conflict, what does it mean when we still kill this US citizen?

[John_Mace]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

As long as we’re in violent agreement about how this doesn’t apply to al-Awlaki, Francs-tireurs - Wikipedia.

Is that no longer in effect? As JC mentioned, this guy at no point met the “have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” criterion – and so “upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty” if he’s a franc-tireur who isn’t entitled to prisoner-of-war status, no?

It is no longer in effect. From the quote I gave in post #57, emphasis added:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

I can’t conceive of a definition of “humanely” that includes summary execution.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@John_Mace

It is no longer in effect. From the quote I gave in post #57, emphasis added

You’re emphasizing a part that explicitly applies to “members of armed forces” who’ve been captured. Does that prisoner-of-war status apply to francs-tireurs who never yet had a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance?

[CoolHandCox]

If you’re not Prisoner of War, you get (common) Article 3 protection - which has been cited many times.

POW = lots of protections (all the articles).
Non-POW = basic protection (only article 3).

Of course basic protection includes not being executed once captured w/o trial. You must be treated humanely.