Skip to comments.CIA drone attacks produce America's own unlawful combatants
Posted on 03/29/2010 11:17:07 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
In our current armed conflicts, there are two U.S. drone offensives. One is conducted by our armed forces, the other by the CIA. Every day, CIA agents and CIA contractors arm and pilot armed unmanned drones over combat zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including Pakistani tribal areas, to search out and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If CIA guys engage in combat as ununiformed civilians, I'm curious why they wouldn't be considered illegal combatants. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Anybody got an idea?
The CIA guys don’t sound like they are on the field of battle. So, as long as the drones have USA markings, what’s the problem?
The CIA answers to a definable chain of command therefore they are complying with the Laws of Warfare.
End of story.
In addition to that, the use of civilian contractors in roles that meet any objective definition of "combat" operations has also raised some concern among folks who understand the risks of applying this label to detainees captured by the U.S. military.
Since Obama is CiC, doesn’t this make him a War Criminal? When his term expires, shouldn’t he be turned ver to The Hague to face charges?
Sounds like sedition and plotting against the government to me.
Another self righteous secularist demanding we follow the rules of war while our enemies try to destroy the very country that makes those rules.
Because they’re flying armed and marked aircraft?
The murder of two CIA employees outside the gate of CIA headquarters in Langley, VA back in 1993 immediately comes to mind.
Been there done that. This is NOTHING new and is just hash over re-hash. Have you ever heard of Air America? The real one not the liberal spew radio station? Try Vietnam, try South America, try anywhere in the world combat is ongoing.
No attempt to disguise the drone so that it could “mix” into a population of civilian drones was made./s
The intent of the unlawful combatant rules of uniform was so that combatants would clearly be differentiated from noncombatants - thus cutting down on noncombatant deaths.
There is no attempt to disguise the drone as a nonmilitary drone.
The analogy is weak sauce at best, for either the goose or the gander.
“It’sa Catcha 22!”
You can’t have US Armed Forces regularly killing terrorists inside Pakistan. But the CIA is another thing.
We’ve been making this argument in JAG circles for years. I frankly have a hard time seeing how they’re not unlawful, or in violation of the “no assassinations” EO. But hey, that’s just me...
The DUmmies, Code Pink, etc., are all big on this too.
Besides they are not trying to hide their status. What would declaring them as "unlawful combatants" accomplish?
In RVN, for Road Runners, we wore black jammies (of course, 6'4” blue eyes, blond hair created a problem within 50 meters, but what the hell?!?!))
For insignia issues, a a US flag and the words “# 1 G.I. Property of Uncle F**king Sam” embroidered in dark OD thread on all clothing.
WaPo and Gary Solis, quite a combo of the blame America first crowd.
If CIA guys engage in combat as ununiformed civilians, I’m curious why they wouldn’t be considered illegal combatants.
The article seemed reasonable to my non lawyer mind, but couldn’t and shouldn’t these legalities be handled by some simple legal paperwork that the government should already have been doing?
The Constitution clearly authorizes letters of marque and reprisal. Aren’t those who operate under LOM&R essentially civilian contractors carrying war to the enemies of the US, authorized to do so by US law and US chain of command? Why are the CIA guys and their contractors any different?
Including Sarah Palin.
The Constitution clearly authorizes letters of marque and reprisal. Arent those who operate under LOM&R essentially civilian contractors carrying war to the enemies of the US, authorized to do so by US law and US chain of command? Why are the CIA guys and their contractors any different?
This WashingMachine Poster has the deleterious disease too! Give him ObummerCaries!
My ancestors at Bunker Hill, Saratoga II and other battles wore no uniforms- they were just farmers with their varmint-poppin` muskets. Only one who had a uniform was Prescott. They were bloodied patriots.
"In August 1775, the King declared Americans in arms against royal authority to be traitors to the Crown. The British government at first started treating captured rebel combatants as COMMON CRIMINALS... Eventually they were technically accorded the rights of belligerents in 1782, by act of Parliament, when they were officially recognized as prisoners of war rather than traitors. At the end of the war, both sides released their surviving prisoners" [not in the MIDDLE of a War!]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
I was unaware that we stamped each and every bullet fired as US Military ordnance.
How close are these drone pilots to the “Flying Tigers” in military status?
Calling it "assassination" doesn't make it so. The role of drones strikes me as more parallel to a sniper on the battlefield, one who shoots an enemy combatant who is not in a position to shoot back. How is the sniper's action unlawful, or is it okay? How is the drone pilot's action different, or is it also okay? As for a uniform, the marked drone's pilot is not on the field of battle, so there is no point in a uniform. If there is a difference, does putting only uniformed personnel at the controls solve the problem? I'd say it does and that makes them quite clearly legally and morally equivalent to their fellow uniformed soldiers - Army snipers.
Are you under the impression that al queda, the taliban and the rest of the muzzie cutthroats wear uniforms, or are legal combatants?
Holder and 0bamao want to treat them as if they are, but under the Geneva Convention, they do not qualify. The best course of action for the muzzies:
KILL 'EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!
If there is a difference, does putting only uniformed personnel at the controls solve the problem? I’d say it does and that makes them quite clearly legally and morally equivalent to their fellow uniformed soldiers - Army snipers.
That’s the point: CIA officers are not military members. Having military members flying planes/UAVs that have weapons systems is clearly within the Law of Armed Conflict. Having civilians fly unarmed UAVs is well within CIA’s ISR bailiwick. Having civilians flying armed UAVs is, to my military mind, a bad idea.
A win for the Pentagon in the Turf War.
All Drone Ops to be run by soldiers.
End of stupid controversy.
This would matter if the muzzies were actually concerned with whether or not someone was a “lagal combatant” or not. If you’re simply a westerner, legal or illegal combatant, it’s grounds for having your head hacked off so I can see why we don’t care.
If you want to kill all the terrorists, I’m with you.
If you mean kill all 1B+ Muslims, including 700M+ women and children, I can’t go along with genocide.
How close are these drone pilots to the Flying Tigers in military status?
They’re not: the Flying Tigers were actually in the employ of China, flying aircraft purchased under lend-lease. These UAV pilots, as I understand the article and from my own experience, are CIA employees. As noted in a previous response, if the UAVs are armed, I have a problem with non-uniformed personnel controlling, no matter where the pilot is physically located.
Why are the CIA guys and their contractors any different?
Because they’re actually employees of the US government, not privateers/carriers of LOM&R. These particular employees aren’t the ones authorized to engage in armed battlefield engagements with the enemy, the uniformed military services are.
Just to make it perfectly clear, you think the USA should kill 1B+ people?
If they threaten us, hell yes! Better a thousand taliban mothers cry for their children, than ONE American Mother.
“The CIA answers to a definable chain of command therefore they are complying with the Laws of Warfare.”
I don’t think that it is quite that simple. For example, in the Geneva Convention there were a lot more requirements to meet than simply having a chain of command in order to qualify as a lawful combatant. Under Geneva Convention standards, the CIA, like any spies, would certainly be classed as unlawful combatants. Any country capturing them would be well within their rights to summarily execute them.
And if the CIA employees are committing war crimes, that means that Obama is, too as they answer ultimately to him.
Now were they operating as sabotuers against the lawful government of Afghanistan your point would be valid. And it seems to me that we've had almost a dozen CIA employees murdered by these monsters already.
When are these 'international law' pinheads going to start worrying about that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.