The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[Bob's World]

I think this is one where the President should simply say "As the President of the United States of America, by special Presidential Directive, I ordered the killing of Usama bin Laden. We take the law serious and everyone involved in this mission was covered by my legal directive. Next quesion."

[jmm99]

showing the Colonial Marine undress uniform ("BDU") carved in stone.

In battle even less might be worn. In 1755, Capt. Daniel-Hyacinthe-Marie Liénard de Beaujeu led the charge against Braddock at Fort Duquesne. Capt. Claude-Pierre Pécaudy de Contrecœur, the fort's commandant, was too old and sick to take the field. Beaujeau stripped to leggings and mocs, putting on only his grade gorget. The gorget must have made a good target because he was killed by Gage's first volley. Beaujeu's five companies of Colonial Marines (each less than 2/3 of today's USMC platoon), some 100 FC militia and some 600 Indians ("coalition partners") then went on to inflict carnage.

It is not unusual for one pair of ancestors to underpin a French-Canadian surname - or French-Lousianan surname, as in the case of Sgt. Fontenot (Fonteneau). They didn''t have to switch beds to do so; they just had a lot of kids (link):

Jean Louis joined the French Colonial Marines as a young man and left France in 1720, at the age of 34, for assignment in the Mobile (Alabama) military district. Six years later (February 8, 1726) he married a widow from New Orleans (Marie Louise Henrique) and was assigned to the Poste aux Alabama (Fort Toulouse) shortly afterwards. Based on "roll call" records at the fort in the mid 1700s, it appears that Jean Louis was the only sergeant at the garrison of about 40 soldiers. He and Marie Louise had twelve children, 8 sons and 4 daughters, all born at the post. When these children became of age (teenagers), the boys joined the marines and married daughters of other marines and the girls married sons of other marines at the fort.

So true also in Canada - Marines married into Marine families (also fur trading and riverine trading families - the three groups fed on each other); their kids became Marines (or militia officers); etc., etc.

Not all Marines engaged in sharp battles ala Beaujeu. A lot of time was spent in garrison - and promotion was very slow. Moreover, much of their activity outside garrison was directed at the "Rule of Law", rather than "Laws of War". LawVol may appreciate this story - from Philippe de Rigault, Marquis de Vaudreuil, Letter, October 12, 1717 (link) (pp.592-593):

The trouble which prevented the principal chiefs of the Detroit tribes from coming to Montreal, was created by an Outaouac of that post and four others from Saguinan. These five men pretended they were going to war against the Flatheads; they proceeded to the river of the Miamis and there slew an Iroquois and his wife, who was a Miami woman, and two children. This wrongful attack concerns the Iroquois because the man who was killed was of their tribe. It also concerns the Miamis, for the man was married and living with them. This matter must be settled, and the Iroquois and Miamis must be prevented from taking vengeance on the Outavois and the other tribes of Detroit.

The Sr. de Tonty has already begun, for his part, to take action with the Miamis through the Sr. de Vincennes to dissuade them from their intention of avenging themselves and to remove every pretext for their pursuing this course which would give rise to a war between them and the people at Detroit and Saguinan, which it would be difficult to stop. He has induced the tribes of Detroit to join him in sending to Saguinan to seize these murderers and deliver them up to the Miamis.

The Outaouacs and Poutouatamis each sent a boat of their men, to which the Sr. de Tonty added a boat of Frenchmen under the command of the Sr. de Bragelongue, a Lieutenant, who brought back the three murderers to Detroit where the Sr. de Tonty had them under guard until he received news from the Miamis, to whom he had taken care, to make known the amends, which it was proposed to make to them. He hopes that they will be satisfied with this action and will accept as a complete reparation the presents which the tribes of Detroit, and the French also, are preparing to make them, and that this disturbance may be suppressed by this means. I hope so, too; but I shall not be able to get any news about it until next spring.

As regards the Iroquois, if they move in this matter, I shall find means to settle it with them, as they will not fail to bring their complaints to me before taking any action.

This (Lt.) Sr. Etienne de Bragelongue, was primarily an engineering type (his dad was an engineer, but also the 3rd ranking general officer in the French cavalry corps). Etienne was the aide-major du fort at Fort Chambly (primarily engineering and logistics), the major "FOB" for the Colonial Marines, on the Richelieu near Montreal) - later a capitaine of one of the Marine companies stationed at Chambly. He married and had one daughter who died young. Before his marriage, he managed another daughter by one woman and possibly a son by another woman. The son died without any issue. The daughter went on to marry and carried on the Bragelongue (Bragelonne - Viscount of, by Dumas, is based on another French branch of this family) line in North America - she has to have thousands of descendants.

How the "Rule of Law" went in 1717 on the Miami.

Cheers

Mike

PS: Bob, I agree with you. FULL STOP

[Polarbear1605]

and here on our own SWJ:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...f-killing-bin/

...could not have said it better myself...except the article should have closed with "Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the law is silent" (law = rule of law of course)
IMO we are seeing how our politicians can get into trouble at the strategic level by mixing ROL and LOW. Can anyone give me an example of how our militray generals get into trouble at the strategic level mixing the two?

[jmm99]

a Marine named "Butch" ?

I read it and also thought it was a good article covering the basics that a rifleman should know (I'd skip the Latin "jus in bello" - right in war):

The law pertaining to the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), which has developed since antiquity and includes certain provisions of the modern Geneva and Hague conventions, permits the sanctioned killing of an opponent in an armed conflict, regardless of whether he is armed at the moment he is engaged. So long as the opponent meets the minimum criteria to be regarded as a combatant (even an unlawful combatant), he may be engaged with deadly force, even if he is separated from his weapon. He may be killed while sleeping, eating, taking a shower, cleaning his weapon, meditating, or standing on his head. It is his status as an enemy combatant, not his activity at the moment of engagement, which is dispositive.

So, good job, Butch

--------------------------
As to the question (mostly outside of my ballpark):

Can anyone give me an example of how our military generals get into trouble at the strategic level mixing the two?

The Phoenix program (and SVN Pacification in general) opened itself up to criticism, as one factor, by treating VCI cadres as "civilians" (RoL) - unless they were themselves armed or accompanied by armed troops (LoW). Thus, if those VCI "civilians" were killed in the course of an operation, a "war crimes" charge was already halfway home. Of course, Phoenix (a mix of "Title 10" and "Title 50") was not a purely military program - so it is not a prime example in answer to your question.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

er.., rather the mouse.

From HuffPost:

SHODDY RAT REMOVAL IN DIRKSEN CAFETERIA: WHERE'S THE HOPE AND CHANGE?

Amanda Terkel was on the Hill today for, you know, reporting and stuff. While there, she witnessed just what has become of pest control in the NOBAMA administration. Amanda writes in: "There was a mouse in the Dirksen dining room today! We noticed it running around by our table and very quickly picked our handbags off the ground. One guy wasn't paying attention and the mouse nearly ran right over his feet, until everyone started to making yelping noises. I was about to take a picture of it (for Twitter) until a guy came over, stomped on it, killed it and then scooped it up and took it away. Everyone was so grossed out."

Capitol officials say the mouse was given a burial in a toilet in accordance with its religious custom, however there is no documentation of it. Also, there is a rumor that Glenn Greenwald is finalizing a scathing rebuke of the operation, maintaining that the mouse should have been captured.

And so it goes in Wonderland.

Cheers

Mike

[Ray]

Mike,

While none (well, at least the majority of the world) would lament OBL being killed, but questions that are being raised in Pakistan and by co religionists in India, is that how far can the US writ (US President's authorisation) legally apply beyond its frontiers as per international law?

Pakistan harbours terrorists and of that there is no doubt. And Pakistan, as a rule, denies their existence. Therefore, maybe the manner in which the US sorted out OBL is the only answer.

Therefore, my query as to what is the legal position on this?

[jmm99]

The legal positions (definitely plural) are described in Pakistan's Sovereignty and the Killing of Osama Bin Laden, by Ashley S. Deeks, referenced in my post #21 above.

My own analysis starts with a first proposition that India, Pstan, Astan and the US are all 1949 Geneva states; have not accepted 1977 AP I and AP II in toto; and accept the Hague regulations. My second proposition is that a 1949 Geneva nation may engage in an armed conflict with a non-state actor (a "Power" in the conflict, which has an option to accept and apply 1949 Geneva under Common Article 2 and generally will come under Common Article 3).

The third proposition is that the Hague regulations impose duties on a neutral state, Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907:

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus forthe purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

From that obligation of the neutral Power, follows the conclusion found in our FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare:

520. Effect of Failure to Prevent Violation of Neutrality by Belligerent Troops

Should the neutral State be unable, or fail for any reason, to prevent violations of its neutrality by the troops of one belligerent entering or passing through its territory, the other belligerent may be justified in attacking the enemy forces on this territory.

Of course, simply because you have a hunting license does not mean you should kill everything in the forest.

The real question is not legality, but the likely response - diplomatic protest vice nuclear warhead.

Regards

Mike