The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[jmm99]

looks like you're rolling along.

The UN's Future Role & One's Worldview

Briefly on the UN. An elite, influential and well-financed group expreses its opinions (Ms O'Connell is but one of many) - and attempts to shape I Law, the "Rule of Law" and the "Laws of War" - along with their Worldview of UNC Art. 2(4). That, in its purest state to them, would expressly say: "Members shall not employ force or the threat of force except upon express authority granted by the UN." The UN then would have, in a Weberian sense, a monopoly on the lawful use of force (violence) - and, in Weberian terms, would become the transnational state.

We who believe otherwise should not delude ourselves into thinking that this challenge can be met by well-stated legal arguments. Those are a waste of time and effort for the most part. What is required is Political Struggle to marginalize them (non-violent, of course, following Gene Sharp) using a methodology similar to that used by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation.

FYI, the present UNC Art. 2(4) is:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

and could be re-phrased as follows (going from a negative commandment to a positive allowance with negative exceptions):

All Members in their international relations may employ the threat or use of force provided that threat or use of force is neither against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, nor in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

One's Worldview definitely enters into this discussion.

----------------------------------------
Who can kill Whom ?

from Da LawVol
[1] Is the President a lawful target despite the fact that he is not in a combat zone? He does direct the war effort, right? [2] What about Joe Schmoe back on the block? Is he a lawful target while he's chillin' in front of his TV? [3] If not, how do you distinguish the lawfulness of targetting bin Laden while he is off the battlefield?

1. To a combatant with combatant immunity, POTUS is a lawful target because of his CinC position. To a combatant without combatant immunity, no one is a lawful target because that combatant can be prosecuted in a court of law. To which threat, that combatant probably says "Big Deal. FO" and goes about his business. In state to state conventional warfare, targeted killings of CinCs have been avoided as a matter of comity (not illegality).

2. Joe Schmoe - what channel is he watching: FoxNews, CNN or MSNBC ? Seriously, going the other way (Us vs Them), the issues under US law hinge on a person being (1) "part of" a TVNSA; (2) part of an "affiliated group"; OR (3) a "provider of material support" to such a group or groups. Again, To a combatant without combatant immunity, no one is a lawful target because that combatant can be prosecuted in a court of law. In which case, he is not likely to be carried by six.

3. Mandatory reading is Executive Order 12333 and Assassination (1989, by W. Hays Parks) - never bettered in 9 pages:

In a Memorandum of Law originally dated November 2, 1989, W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, examined national and international legal interpretations of assassination in order to provide guidance in revising a U.S. Army Law of War Manual. The memo is not a statement of policy, but rather a discussion of the definition of assassination and legal issues to consider in its application, including levels of conflict and the distinction between assassination in wartime and peacetime. It explores the meaning and possible application of assassination - which is prohibited as a matter of national policy by Executive Order 12333 - in conventional, counterinsurgency, and counter-terrorist operations. The memo concludes that the use of military force against legitimate targets that threaten U.S. citizens or national security as determined by the President does not constitute assassination and would therefore not be prohibited by Executive Order 12333 or by international law.

This memo, in truth, was written by a Marine for Marines, who (as Polarbear1605 has recently advised me) can only read one word at a time.

Regards

Mike