The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[Fuchs]

The U.S. signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations which forbids going just anywhere and killing people because that's an aggression.

What's more; the U.S. signed and ratified the North Atlantic Treaty which expressly requires its members to follow the principles of the United Nations.


Veto right or not - the idea that the U.S. could legitimately kill people in foreign countries (instead of going the diplomatic route and asking UN to sanction that safe haven) is incompatible with too much to list here.

Seriously, it's a disrespectful and very arrogant idea. Don't be surprised if even formal allies turn sometime against you if you disrespect treaty obligations like this.

[Levi]

The U.S. signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations which forbids going just anywhere and killing people because that's an aggression.

What's more; the U.S. signed and ratified the North Atlantic Treaty which expressly requires its members to follow the principles of the United Nations.


Veto right or not - the idea that the U.S. could legitimately kill people in foreign countries (instead of going the diplomatic route and asking UN to sanction that safe haven) is incompatible with too much to list here.

Seriously, it's a disrespectful and very arrogant idea. Don't be surprised if even formal allies turn sometime against you if you disrespect treaty obligations like this.

I honestly hadn't considered the UN charter or the North Atlantic Treaty. I do not know what they say. I will TRY to read them, I hope they are not too dry. I was only thinking from the perspective of, well, selfishness and self preservation, if not disrespect and arrogance. As a citizen, when a terrorist act takes place, it's against me. Most likely. But I have no say in any response, and no way to affect an outcome or create "a desired end state" that is beneficial for me, i.e. not getting killed at a football game, and being able to travel abroad without fear. I can vote. That changes very little, in my experience.

If a foreign government comes and kills someone IN MY BACKYARD, LITERALLY, then I hope they do it quietly, and I am not caught in the crossfire. Or my rabbits. If this HVT did something to kill and injure a bunch of people who just wanted to go on about their lives, and the foreign gov gets him here, the unit members can expect beer from me. My only question is, why was the US GOV so slow that someone else had to do the job? Governments are one thing, real life is another.

I do see the reality of what you are saying, Fuchs. I know we can't just go around killing willy-nilly. So what do we do? Interpol? Do they operate in yemen and northern pakistan?

I don't like to be arrogant or disrespectful. I just don't see letting a treaty with the UN get in the way of protecting American interests and lives.

[Fuchs]

Well, other people in other countries have rights, too.

How would you react if Cuba did assassinate some exile Cubans in Florida with their marines for being terrorists?

Would you want the Russian air force to bomb a motel in Kansas because an exile Chechen leader sleeps there?

How about an accidental bombing of a wedding party in Arizona because the Mexicans suspected a drug crime lord / terrorist there?


You see, there's a thing called sovereignty, and claiming this for the own country while ignoring the sovereignty of other countries with violent actions on their home turf is disrespectful and arrogant.

[jmm99]

I really did not understand what situation you were positing. From this,

from Levi
US citizens and citizens of foreign nations who are actively involved in terrorism against the US or allies, or aiding and abetting terrorism, and the proof is there, should be considered valid targets, for police action if possible, and military action if necessary, wherever on the planet they may be.

you were thinking of al-Awlaki situations - where there are US constraints and also US restraints (even if Mr. Brown Bear confidently asserts there are not).

The Iraqi case I mentioned involved the same basic idea (Positive Identification - PID) of person or persons defined as members of a hostile enemy force under US military law and ROEs. The women and children introduced a wildcard. The bad guys there decided it was a bad day to die, given the possibility of a revolving door under Iraq's criminal justice system. Under different circumstances, that "LEO approach" could have led to disaster for our troops.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

I am well aware of what the US has signed and not signed; I am well aware of what the EU-NATO states have signed and not signed; and I am well aware of the ICRC and what it has recommended - and what of that has been accepted or rejected by various states.

I have also frankly stated (and linked to) the US legal academics who dispute the basic rules adopted by the Bush Administration and expanded in the targeted killing area by the Obama Administration - and where the Legistative and Judicial branches have endorsed those rules.

Mere citation of the UN Charter and North Atlantic Treaty are inadequate to shake my boots. I know and have frankly admitted the divide between the USG position and the dominant EU-NATO position - in this and in other jus ad bellum and jus in bello issues. That divide cannot be bridged without one side or the other substantially changing material beliefs.

I'm serious too. If what you call "even formal allies" truly believe what you apparently believe about the US, then they would have a moral and ethical duty to terminate the alliances - and, also legal obligations to do that under both the UN Charter and North Atlantic Treaty (if they interpret them as you do). If some of them elect to do that, I would not blink.

Whether you want to charge some or many USAians with War Crimes is up to you. If you believe that, you should say so. Put the meat on the table.

As to sovereignty, you allege:

You see, there's a thing called sovereignty, and claiming this for the own country while ignoring the sovereignty of other countries with violent actions on their home turf is disrespectful and arrogant.

and I know that's not directed at me - unless you've disregarded everything I've written here and elsewhere.

When State A relies on a neutrality law argument to justify an attack against an enemy group X within the bounds of State B, State A runs the risk that State B will respond with something other than silence, a diplomatic protest or a claim for money. That is the answer to your questions:

How would you react if Cuba did assassinate some exile Cubans in Florida with their marines for being terrorists?

Would you want the Russian air force to bomb a motel in Kansas because an exile Chechen leader sleeps there?

How about an accidental bombing of a wedding party in Arizona because the Mexicans suspected a drug crime lord / terrorist there?

If our Homeland Security would react as it should, we would kill the Cubans, Russians and Mexicans. The Chinese and Russians would do the same thing.

What would the EU-NATO states do in the same three situations - make the US the attacker and change the locations to UK, France and Germany ?