Yes indeed, requirements such as a charge and a trial for every single dead person.
Try them for what, and in what courts? People in Pakistan, or any other nation, aren't subject to US law. How could we possibly try them?
I mean, I understand the concerns you have about the overreach of power, here, but militaries have always had command authority to determine what is a battlefield and what, or who, should be a target. Your objection, therefore, isn't meaningfully with anything new that's happening, it's with the very idea of nations using their militaries.
Well, I agree, for the most part. Military force by it's very nature is outside of a lot of international law and the normal rules of statecraft. That's why war has been called "the last argument of kings." By it's very nature, the exercise of military power says "the law, for the most part, isn't applicable now." That's why war should be an absolute last resort, it's a truly awful thing and inimical to civilization.
But while a state of war may not exist between the US and Pakistan, the use of these air strikes to prosecute the objectives of the war on terror was approved by Congress, so I don't see how you could get to a "violation of the separation of powers" argument. So I just don't see where you can say that these strikes are somehow illegitimate. Enemy soldiers don't get a trial before they're neutralized on the battlefield. That's never been the standard.
People in Pakistan, or any other nation, aren't subject to US law. How could we possibly try them?
The intended targets of the strikes had a trial of sorts. Someone decided that they needed to die. It just wasn't a trial with an impartial judge and a defence. They may not be subject to the protection of US law but they sure are subject to the penalty of US law. Now that the war is endless and everyone is a potential 'militant' and the battlefield includes the whole world, who is immune to it?
...the use of these air strikes to prosecute the objectives of the war on terror was approved by Congress, so I don't see how you could get to a "violation of the separation of powers" argument. So I just don't see where you can say that these strikes are somehow illegitimate.
I can say that they are illegitimate by viewing them from the standpoint of someone attending a funeral who gets 'collaterally' blown up because his cousin had a 'life pattern' that was consistent with someone who is anti-American. Or from the view of someone eating lunch at a restaurant who gets 'collaterally' blown up because the guy sitting next to him is on a list. Hardly battlefield situations. Claiming the legal protections of the battlefield in these cases is bogus.
The fact that congress says that it is ok sure doesn't mean that it is ok. Are Americans citizens of the world or are they just Americans?
That's why war should be an absolute last resort, it's a truly awful thing and inimical to civilization.
It used to be. Now it's almost painless and integral. Harder and harder to distinguish the real thing from the latest HALO video on youtube. A matter for bureaucrats, technicians, lawyers and casual conversation. Just wait until they can shoot a toxic icicle dart out of a hummingbirds ass. We wont hardly notice at all.
Yes; the military command of the United States following orders that ultimately stem from the authority of the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. But it most definitely wasn't any kind of "trial." It was a military-ordered air strike into a combat zone.
It just wasn't a trial with an impartial judge and a defence.
There's no system of government in the world that requires trials for every enemy or target fired upon by that nations militaries. That's an absurdity - imagine how paralyzed the civilized governments of the world would be if every military response had to be predicated by a full trial by jury. Imagine how impotent they would be in response to a force that operated under no such restriction. And, again, there's still the jurisdictional problem of trying foreign nationals under laws they're not subject to and for things that might not even be crimes under their law.
Now that the war is endless and everyone is a potential 'militant' and the battlefield includes the whole world, who is immune to it?
Yes, it's manifestly a problem with war that it cannot really be constrained by a nation's laws or borders. That's all part of its unique horror.
Or from the view of someone eating lunch at a restaurant who gets 'collaterally' blown up because the guy sitting next to him is on a list. Hardly battlefield situations.
How is it not a battlefield when bombs are going off? It becomes a battlefield when the military decides to fight someone there.
Just wait until they can shoot a toxic icicle dart out of a hummingbirds ass. We wont hardly notice at all.
So what would you rather have? Grand armies marching with fixed bayonets? Dysentery and battlefield amputations? Hundreds of thousands dead to settle political scores? I'm with you on the horror of war right up to the point where you think there's a moral need to make it far more dangerous to be a soldier. And, you know, it's not like it was safe to be a bystander in the bad old days, either. War is a horror. Prosecuting it from the safety of a computer screen, with civilian casualties in the tens instead of the thousands, seems like a pretty clear improvement to me. But then, I'm not saddled with the kind of immorality that demands that millions die just to make war "painful."
But it most definitely wasn't any kind of "trial."
Alright a judgement then. I will say that it is encouraging that the President personally signs off on each strike.
It was a military-ordered air strike into a combat zone.
Funerals and restaurants in sovereign nations that the US is not at war with are not 'combat zones' by any stretch of the imagination.
How is it not a battlefield when bombs are going off? It becomes a battlefield when the military decides to fight someone there.
By this logic the WTC and hijacked airliners of Sept 11 were legitimate battlefields. Unless it is only legitimate when the US decides where the battlefields are. It is hard to legitimately condemn others for actions that you yourself also do.
So what would you rather have? Grand armies marching with fixed bayonets? Dysentery and battlefield amputations?... I'm not saddled with the kind of immorality that demands that millions die just to make war "painful."
Bit of a false dichotomy here.
Look I think that the intended targets are likely bad guys and the people in the CIA making the calls are likely good guys. I understand that the 'rules of war' is a bit of an oxymoron. We make the distinction that the battlefield is a unique place for a reason and extending the legal protections of the battlefield to include everywhere is a massive erosion of the concept of due process and human rights in one fell swoop.
imagine how paralyzed the civilized governments of the world would be if every military response had to be predicated by a full trial by jury.
1.The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
2.For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given; (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against 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:
(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.
How is it not a battlefield when bombs are going off? It becomes a battlefield when the military decides to fight someone there.
By this logic the WTC and hijacked airliners of Sept 11 were legitimate battlefields. Unless it is only legitimate when the US decides where the battlefields are. It is hard to legitimately condemn others for actions that you yourself also do.
Not quite. The people that planned and carried out the terrorist attacks on the WTC were not a Nation State and so had no right to take such action. Terrorist attacks are murder.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Funerals and restaurants in sovereign nations that the US is not at war with are not 'combat zones' by any stretch of the imagination.
They're combat zones by the simple virtue of being zones where combat is occurring. And what is a military air strike if not combat?
By this logic the WTC and hijacked airliners of Sept 11 were legitimate battlefields.
Because a nation's military used military ordinance to attack them? I don't follow.
Bit of a false dichotomy here.
It's nothing more than the dichotomy you've put forward in your posts.
We make the distinction that the battlefield is a unique place for a reason and extending the legal protections of the battlefield to include everywhere is a massive erosion of the concept of due process and human rights in one fell swoop.
Show me a single example from history where we've ever said "here is a place where there can be no battlefield" and had that work. Armies have fought in jungles and in deserts. Snipers fire from church steeples because they're high up; armies fight in and for cities because of their immense value.
Everywhere has always been a battlefield defined precisely because a military is fighting there. That's what makes it a battlefield!
From the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 to which the US is a signatory.
Drone strikes don't violate any of the provisions of Article 8 of these statutes.
- People who do not uphold to the rules of war can not claim the protection of the rules of war. Those who do uphold the rules of war can not be legally hamstrung by those who do not.
- The extent of the battlefield is best determined by the laws of neutrality. In other words, you deal with them or we will.
As a layman, I mostly agree with this paper. That is to say that it just feels right.
It basically says, "Fuck you! You are not going to win on a technicality if I can kick your ass."
I am good with that. The best should win.
It still doesn't address the dead people who shouldn't be dead by all accounts. Since we are in the middle of evolving new laws to deal with it all how about we just say that it is unacceptable. If you want to kill that guy then kill that guy but not his wife and daughter and dog too. It is just too close to what we call murder when somebody else does it.
Make it illegal and then give it a while. You will have toxic icicle darts shooting out of a hummingbird's ass in no time and then you can say "This is who we killed and this is why we killed him."
The secrets of war are less important than the values that they are employed to defend.
Even so, it explains how the battlefield is not simply where the bombs are falling and everyone is not a criminal.
You keep saying "criminal", as though it would somehow be better, more legal, if the United States began acting like all human beings were subject to its laws, regardless of their citizenship or residence, and began enforcing those laws at the point of police firearms.
You've not been able to explain how it's more legal for the United States to "try" people not in custody, who are not American citizens, and who are engaged in conduct that may not even be illegal under their own law. I would point out that under those circumstances - the accused being unable to face their accuser, challenge evidence, or present a defense - no "trial" could be anything but a farce.
It still doesn't address the dead people who shouldn't be dead by all accounts.
Sadly, accidental, unintended casualties is the name of the game in military intervention. But many less people are dead as a result of drone strikes than would be dead as a result of a military invasion and occupation of Pakistan.
Your like a knight arguing with someone from World War 1 about how using guns on the battlefield is criminal because the bullets might miss their target and hit something else. And its so much more noble to be in your enemy's face as you run them through with a sword.
Weapons evolve and get better and people are going to be uncomfortable with the use of the new technology, but its not "criminal".
And if Hiroshima wasn't a crime then some drone strikes certainly aren't.
™ Version 4.2
(1)