Gazing in the Congo (DRC): the dark heart of Africa (2006-2017)

[jmm99]

sera assimil un combatant" is clear enough for that moment in time; except for one argument that has been thrown at the US re: its actions in Iraq, Astan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia - and probably elsewhere.

That argument very simply is that carrying firearms in those countries is not at all uncommon among civilians. Therefore, carrying firearms is not sufficient (in and of itself) to make positive ID of combatants. In fact, the US has been consistently criticized by the UN-ICRC, as to its matrices for signature strikes, for too heavily relying on two factors, military age males + carrying firearms, as proving positive ID of combatants.

Even where carrying firearms is made absolutely illegal (except for soldiers and police), that makes gun-carrying civilians criminals, not combatants. As criminals, those gun-carrying civilians are under the protection of Article 6(1) of the ICCPR, which the UN certainly has to admit is a binding international treaty, stating that “every human being has the inherent right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” In the US, that rule is known to every cop as Tennessee v Garner, which restricts the instances in which even a gun-carrying civilian felon may be shot.

General Cruz' statement in Digital Congo doesn't evidence what other UN-ICRC rules he is not following by omission, or what rules he is even breaking by commission. I see no evidence in the statement that Cruz has taken Nels Melzer's "direct participation in hostilities" as the rule governing FIB's offensive targeting operations.

If, pursuant to General Cruz's apparent ROE, gun-carrying civilians are actually being shot as "combatants", at least some of those killings would most likely constitute, under the consistent UN-ICRC proclamations that have filled the past decade, either extrajudicial executions or war crimes.

No doubt that General Cruz is faced with a difficult situation; that recourse to more "direct action" is often effective; and that pragmatism may justify the COA elected. Last nite, I watched La Bataille d'Alger; effective methods (in the short run, of course).

My own "feeling" is that, if FIB actually engages in "effective offensive targeting", it will end up actually employing as harsh or harsher ROEs than the US has employed since 9/11; but that the US will remain the UN-ICRC whipping post.

Regards

Mike