CIA drone attacks produce America's own unlawful combatants

Washington Post ^ | Friday, March 12, 2010 | Gary Solis

[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.

[Sherman Logan]

I thought the author makes a darn good point.

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?

[circlecity]

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?

[Lurker]

It's the WaPo. Every single word they write is to be considered enemy propaganda.

The CIA answers to a definable chain of command therefore they are complying with the Laws of Warfare.

End of story.

[Alberta's Child]

Excellent point here.

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.

[theDentist]

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?

[thethirddegree]

Moreover, CIA civilian personnel who repeatedly and directly participate in hostilities may have what recent guidance from the International Committee of the Red Cross terms "a continuous combat function." That status, the ICRC guidance says, makes them legitimate targets whenever and wherever they may be found, including Langley.

Sounds like sedition and plotting against the government to me.

[Walkingfeather]

Another self righteous secularist demanding we follow the rules of war while our enemies try to destroy the very country that makes those rules.

[Little Ray]

Because they’re flying armed and marked aircraft?

[Alberta's Child]

Interesting. One of the risks associated with this scenario is that it potentially exposes CIA employees to "legitimate" (at least under the international laws of warfare) attack right here in the U.S.

The murder of two CIA employees outside the gate of CIA headquarters in Langley, VA back in 1993 immediately comes to mind.

[Gaffer]

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.

[allmendream]

The face presented to the enemy is the drone. It doesn't matter who is flying it. The drone is not unmarked. The drone is clearly identified as a US military asset.

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.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“It’sa Catcha 22!”

[Berlin_Freeper]

You can’t have US Armed Forces regularly killing terrorists inside Pakistan. But the CIA is another thing.

[jagusafr]

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...

Colonel, USAFR

[VeniVidiVici]

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.

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?

[MindBender26]

As long as they have an inentifyable chain of command, a nation-state they support and have some item of identifiable insignia, they are completely “legal.”

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.

[jazusamo]

WaPo and Gary Solis, quite a combo of the blame America first crowd.

[darkside321]

If CIA guys engage in combat as ununiformed civilians, I’m curious why they wouldn’t be considered illegal combatants.

---

Well if they get caught they could easy end for the rest of their life in a place like guantanamo without any trial. (And it would be “legal”) because they are not protected buy any law or something like the geneva convention.

[ansel12]

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?

[RedElement]

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?