The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[Polarbear1605]

I can’t tell you how much I agree with the need for this discussion. I understand, to a certain degree, why politicians blur the line between the Rules of Law and the Laws of War. My biggest issue with the “blurring’ is that our generals and admirals now follow the same practice. Again, I ain’t no lawyer; just a military mind at work here.

JMM99 has pointed out that under the Laws of War “combatants” have the legal right to kill one another; seen, unseen; planned, unplanned; in this room or in a room on the other side of the world. The only thing that changes that is when they throw their hands in the air and yell I surrender, I give up, I quit, or I want to go see Disney World Orlando. The laws are designed that way to not only allow combatants to legally kill each other out of military necessity but also, if you happened to be a combatant, provide for your self-defense (defense for country is implied j/k).

Now, I am not trying to muddy the waters further but... When I first heard about this operation, it all made sense that Navy Seals were following their ROE or Laws of War. I thought that the CIA and the NCA were following the same model we used in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The command structure was President to General Franks, Combat Commander Central Command, to CIA forces deployed to Combat Commander Central Command. The operation was conducted under Frank's Combat Command Authority…remember that authority cannot be delegated. Using the Combat Command made it war and therefore the Laws of Wars were in effect.

”Combat Command - Nontransferable command authority established by title 10 ("Armed Forces"), United States Code, section 164, exercised only by commanders of unified or specified combatant commands unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense. Combatant command (command authority) cannot be delegated and is the authority of a combatant commander to perform those functions of command over assigned forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations, joint training, and logistics necessary to accomplish the missions assigned to the command. Combatant command (command authority) should be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is exercised through subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component commanders. Combatant command (command authority) provides full authority to organize and employ commands and forces as the combatant commander considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions. Operational control is inherent in combatant command (command authority). Also called COCOM.”

Now it seems that the chain of command to the kill Osama mission was President, to CIA, to Joint Special Operations Command (Adm McRaven), to Navy Seal Team under title 50. Title 50? What in blazing blue balls of flame is that? (That is a rhetorical question for all you lawyers out there). I am reading title 50 now, you are going to have to give me a day or two on that I am having trouble on the repealed chapter concerning “INTERFERENCE WITH HOMING PIGEONS OWNED BY UNITED STATES”. Yep!...it is marked repealed but it is there.

So the question still stands; why do we blur the line between Laws of War and Rule of Law?