Skip to comments.Hellfire, Morality and Strategy in the Drone Wars
Posted on 02/21/2013 7:44:29 PM PST by Seizethecarp
The argument in favor of using unmanned aerial vehicle strikes is, therefore, that the act of killing the individual is a military necessity dictated by the enemy's strategy and that it is carried out with the understanding that both intelligence and precision might fail, no matter how much care is taken. This means not only that civilians might be killed in a particular strike but also that the strike might hit the wrong target. The fact that a specific known individual is being targeted does not change the issue from a military matter to a judicial one.
It would seem to me that these strikes do not violate the rules of war and that they require no more legal overview than was given in thousands of bomber raids in World War II.
Ignoring the question of whether jihadist operations are in accordance with the rules and customs of war, their failure to carry a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" is a violation of both the Hague and Geneva conventions. This means that considerations given to soldiers under the rules of war do not apply to those waging war without insignia.
Open insignia is fundamental to the rules of war. It was instituted after the Franco-Prussian war, when French snipers dressed as civilians fired on Germans. It was viewed that the snipers had endangered civilians because it was a soldier's right to defend himself and that since they were dressed as civilians, the French snipers -- not the Germans -- were responsible for the civilian deaths. It follows from this that, to the extent that jihadist militants provide no sign of who they are, they are responsible under international law when civilians are killed because of uncertainty as to who is a soldier and who is not. Thus the onus on ascertaining the nature of the target rests with the United States, but if there is error, the responsibility for that error rests with jihadists for not distinguishing themselves from civilians.
Once an American citizen takes up arms against it in the service of a foreign government or organization, he is fair game.
My wife says that he should automatically lose his citizenship once they leave the country, which would obviate the need for any reference to “constitutional rights”.
I say, Kill the bastards and have a cold beer.
My understanding is that certain actions, notably waging war on the USA, result in automatic loss of citizenship. I don't think it matters whether this is within or outside the boundaries of the country.
You know I have given a lot of thinking to Obama’s methodologies; he continuously gives the perception that he and his minions are at work trying to amend and change the Constitution. It occurred to me that he may be nothing more than a modern day Wizard of Oz, giving the impression that he is secretly working on taking away our constitutional rights while in fact he is bluffing to keep us afraid and on the defensive. What if the right were to call him on his bluffs, take action like say raiding one of his ammo stockpiles, recruiting members of Anonymous to gather embarrassing intel on his comrades, proposing legislation to restrict his EO power, and repealing Obamacare to defund and derail his administration? How would he feel then? I’m guessing he wouldn’t like it one bit. And it would let him know how we feel for a change.