FM3-24 and FM90-8

[SteveMetz]

A coup as you stated was to be "arranged by the CIA". I took that as arranging the demise of a state leader through direct or indirect means. There are lawsa against that with definite legal triggers which get the Congress and the executive arm involved under very close legal scrutiny. Assassination is illegal as is support to any group planning an assassination.

An decision to invade is different in process and end state. Again in the case of iraq the Congress and the Executive Branches were involved.





As for the above, I am not going to exchange posts like this with you. PM sent.

Tom

He is on the mark about one thing--there are some bizarre contradictions in American policy and law. Regime change by coup or assassination is generally proscribed (with some exceptions); regime change by conventional invasion OK. It's legal during armed operations to bomb an enemy fuel dump and cause massive ecological damage, but would be illegal to use biological agents which would turn the fuel to gel and render it ineffective without causing a massive fire. It's legal to shoot enemies with bullets, but not to tear gas them.

[Steve Blair]

He is on the mark about one thing--there are some bizarre contradictions in American policy and law. Regime change by coup or assassination is generally proscribed (with some exceptions); regime change by conventional invasion OK. It's legal during armed operations to bomb an enemy fuel dump and cause massive ecological damage, but would be illegal to use biological agents which would turn the fuel to gel and render it ineffective without causing a massive fire. It's legal to shoot enemies with bullets, but not to tear gas them.

I think that covers just about everyone when it comes to contradictions in international law, LOAC, and so on. It's all almost other-worldly sometimes.