By consensus of the UN Security Council.
That's not a standard of evidence. That's just saying "the UNSC says so." This is therefore not an answer.
And, by all means, what standard of evidence is required under the Geneva Conventions? Oh, yeah, that's right. It's supposed to be a functional, applicable series of rules which can be broadly applicable even under combat conditions.
The standards of evidence applicable to whether the Geneva Conventions are those applied by a
COURT. Which I have stated multiple times now.
Tell me - why did you -
again - outright
snip the part where I pointed out how the UN
actually administers the Geneva Conventions - by establishing courts?
Is it because it totally destroys your totally made up but-it-makes-sense-to-you argument as to how the UNSC and the Geneva Conventions interact?
Uh... except for all this:
What is that suppossed to be? The existence of a prefunctory bureaucratic procedure for putting someone on a list is
not due process, no more than an autocrat arbitrarily deciding someone is an enemy of the state and should be killed by signing the relevant form is.
And the extensive de-listing procedure, which is further detailed. Other than that, none whatsoever.
But I'm curious as to what due process you consider to be required, here.
"Extensive de-listing procedure" my ass. All that happens is that an 'accused' for lack of a better term can petition the UN to be de-listed, which is then forwarded to the designating governments, and either considered or rejected.
No right to challenge the evidence on which they were listed, which remains entirely secret, and no right to cross-exmaine their accusers.
Due process ... please, its an absurd claim.
How, exactly, is it irrelevant? If a group is at war with another group, don't you consider a consensus view of the UNSC on the leadership of the second group to be relevant for purposes of evaluating whether they are a legitimate military target?
I am genuinely perplexed by your stance on this. How can such a consensus statement from a group which does, in fact, have the authority to authorize use of military force, not be relevant at all for such determinations?
What "evidence" (I use that term loosely since this is not a judicial action) do you think can be relevant to making determinations of whether or not someone is a legitimate military target, and how can the UNSC not be a competent body for evaluating this evidence?
Its really not that difficult a concept - the UNSC simply
did not and
does not declare by fiat whether someone has or has not broken the laws of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions are administered by
courts of law - wherein the accused (hypothetically the Obama administration) can proffer his evidence before the court and the court then passes judgement.
And what weight of evidence is required by the Geneva Convention? Enlighten us, Vympel.
Evidence that is put before an impartial court to be adjudicated on, as opposed to unchallenged 'secret' evidence the veracity of which is completely unknown.
Really basic stuff, this is. Do you know
anything about how civilized courts work? or do you think its like that "a murderer was put to death today" scene in Starship Troopers?
You don't see how the UNSC naming someone as a leader of a group engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with a country makes that person a legitimate military target? What would be required, in your view, for someone to become a legitimate military target?
You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again - find me a single principle in the administration of the Geneva Conventions - which you could easily do by simply reviewing the records of the ICY or ICR - that says UNSC decrees can be used to do an end run around courts independently deciding whether the laws of armed conflict were or were not broken.
As for what would be required for someone to be considered a legitimate military target, I've already been over that exhaustively by reference to what the Geneva Conventions say. In legal proceedings for any hypothetical prosecution for Awlaki's death, Awlaki would have to be
proven - with
verified evidence - that he either assumed a continuous combat function or that he was a civilian who at the time he was killed was directly participating in hostilities. Period.
Legitimate military targets can be lawfully killed under the Geneva Conventions, remember? A leader of a group engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with another country is a legitimate military target.
The UNSC never declared him a legitimate military target, even if it was competent to do so.
Which claim is that? That the UNSC's statements have some relevance on whether or not someone is a legitimate military target?
And recall that factual findings by a legislative body are often above the perusal of courts in the first place.
You're simply stalling now - the claim I'm referring to is the claim that the decrees of the UNSC are binding on international criminal courts to determine whether a law has been broken. So again, what do you have about the structure of the UN that supports your claims?
Let's note, for the umpteenth time, that when the UN administers the Geneva Conventions, it
establishes courts.
Answer the bloody question.
I don't really give a shit which court actually administers the law in this area. I'm curious as to why you think that a statement by the UNSC is not relevant to settling a case like this.
I don't care what you give a shit about, I care about what the existence of those courts actually prove, and the fact that you
keep on snipping the fact that in administering the Geneva Conventions the UN establishes courts to do so rather than just issuing decrees is very interesting, to say the least.
As for "I'm curious as to why" I've answered that question already above.
So you're claiming that the UNSC's statements on the matter are not relevant? This makes absolutely zero sense, and you know it. The UNSC's statements are extremely relevant because they establish the facts that UN member states are bound to accept.
It makes perfect sense if you stop repeating yourself and actually listen to what I'm saying. I note at no stage do you even bother to
engage with the point I made - i.e. that your construction flagrantly flies in the face of the principles of justice, and are demonstrably not in accordance with how the Geneva Conventions are actually administered by the UNSC.
How can a state possibly violate the Geneva Conventions by accepting a UNSC statement?
By exceeding the authority imposed by that statement. That resolution was never intended to authorize the death of anyone on that list on any particular state's whims, nor could it ever have any bearing on whether something is or isn't in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Keep in mind, the US's armed conflict with Al Qaeda has absolutely nothing to do with UNSC authorization--authority for it has always derived from the inherent right to self-defense--something that I've already explained to you and which you have deliberately ignored.
I ignore it because its not relevant. If the US wishes to assert it has 'the right to defend itself' by blowing up Awlaki and who knows who else, then it can do so. It doesn't make it legal, anymore than the calls of any number of nations who try and excuse their actions with the same excuse.
WHAT? That's not at all what I've argued.
A better question is whether you think that the UNSC was ignorant of the fact that a state on the UNSC engaged in an ongoing armed conflict would not believe that someone who, by consensus among the members of the UNSC, is a leader of that group would nonetheless not be considered a legitimate military target. That is simply absurd.
Not at all. What individual countries in the UNSC do or don't know doesn't matter in the fucking slightest, what matters is what the resolution says and doesn't say.
So you now believe that the UNSC is not permitted to authorize the use of military force?
The UNSC does not target individuals for assassination, and even if it did, it
did not, so again, you asked a damn fool question.
Because it's relevant to establishing leadership of AQAP, you fucking idiot. Your inability to understand even the simplest logical and legal connections is simply astounding.
No, dumbfuck, it isn't relevant, for the reasons I've stated repeatedly.
I don't really care about Awlaki, but I'll be damned if I let you run around and claim that his killing was anything other than absolutely, 100% legal.
Well that's too fucking bad, because your confidence is completely ill-founded and made up, and constructed out of a completely amateurish and downright ignorant construction of international law that no credible international lawyer would take seriously for a second. The fact that Awlaki's killing was extremely controversial amongst lawyers who actually know what the hell they're talking about should clue you in as to how cavalier and ignorant your analysis is - that goes double for the fact that this half-assed justification you pulled out of your ass isn't even the justification the US actually used. That justification remains the subject of a secret memo which they refuse to release.
You can imagine why - because they don't want it ripped to shreds by third party lawyers who don't have the sole job for inventing cockamamie quasi-legal justifications for everything the US government does.
Keep in mind, this board has a long history of having members decry such operations as the killing of Osama bin Laden as being (somehow) illegal under international law, so you'll forgive me for being rather skeptical of such claims of illegality of targeted killing operations.
There's actually a whole massive discussion that could be had re: this insistence that the US is in an "armed conflict with Al-Qaeda" so as to make anywhere the US acts anywhere in the world a war zone, but that's a whole other argument.
