US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Broomstick]

In other words, Hammer, you're saying the ends justify the means, and because you approve in this case you're OK with it.

I don't think that's good enough. Laws help keep honest men honest. If we truly have a need for "extra-judicial killing" (which I am not convinced we do, though I acknowledge it happens) perhaps we should develop some sort of review process performed in daylight so this sort of thing is no longer outside the bounds of law but regulated so that it applies only to the worst cases where there is truly no other alternative, with highly specific criteria to be met.

Isn't it like a stupid police chief determining that a criminal is guilty and summarily declaring a death sentence, and sending a maverick Dirty Harry-esque cop to kill the guy? No trials, no shit, just like that? And it's not just citizens of your own city/country/nation that are within the jurisdiction of their assassination summary execution squads, but just about anyone on Earth on their "enemy" kill list.

Yes, that is what Hammer is saying is acceptable, near as I can tell.

That can lead to all sorts of nasty shit, such powers can and will be abused. Americans are just lucky that they're rich and fat and complacent, and that their government is doing these atrocities to other people.

Leaving aside the wide brush covered in anti-American viewpoint with which you splash the rest of your post, yes, Americans are fortunate that SO FAR this is only applied to people elsewhere. It is also inevitable that this would eventually be extended to Americans on American territory, justified in the name of "national security". We saw this post WWII when the mechanisms devised to track and catch spies were used against American citizens from the 50's through the 1960's. The FBI files on activists, civil rights workers, and anti-war protesters read quite a bit like the files on East German citizens kept by the Stasi. Peoples lives and careers were ruined, and their relatives regarded as guilty by association. Hammer is probably too young to remember that era, but I am not. What came out in the 1970's about the US government's treatment of its own citizens makes me deeply suspicious of granting ever more power to spy and judge to the Federal government, and especially the Executive Branch. We've been down this road before.

There's a reason why we're supposed to have checks and balances in our Federal government, with each main area keeping an eye on the other two (Executive, Judicial, Legislative). The post-9/11 Bush administration tried to immunize the Executive from oversite, which immediately made me wonder what they were trying to hide. If what they were doing was on the level there wouldn't be an issue with others looking in on what they're doing. Granted, some things do need to be kept secret, but Congressional members already have mechanisms to determine who is trustworthy to look at secret things, and the Judicial branch likewise should have some trustworthy members who know what "keep your mouth shut" means. Adequate review doesn't mean make everything absolutely public, but it does mean oversight of some sort.

[Broomstick]

If they determine their unmanned drone assassinations as carefully as they do with their invasions that entail risking thousands of their own soldiers in a years long investment of blood, life and treasure, then I would be satisfied.

I wouldn't - the people being shot, maimed and killed are not the relatives and loved ones of the oligarchs making the decisions. It is an all too human trait to care more for your own than for others. If none of the people making the decisions have loved ones at personal risk it becomes easier to get into wars and send people to their deaths. The US military is predominantly from the lower classes, with a higher proportion of minorities than the rooms where these decisions are made. Too easy to send "those people" to death or wounding than if they were perceived as equals.

I'm not satisfied with the so-called decision making processes that led us into Iraq and the false evidence and connections. Nor am I satisfied that how targets are picked as "legitimate" for drone attacks or surgical strikes are picked.

At least in the bin Laden case there was some international consensus that he was a bad man and such tactics were justified - it wasn't perfect, but some open discussion was conducted. He may be an exceptional case that tests the rules. Certainly, the only ones shedding tears over him are his immediate family, and maybe not all of those.

With Anwar... the waters are muddy beyond belief, whether or not he's an American citizen, and his citizenship just muddies them further. He's another slip down the slippery slope. Where does this end? If the line of "acceptable" is moved to that point will the Executive try to move it yet again? (History would indicate this is quite likely). With this guy, we can say "well, the Yemen government tried and convicted him" as justification that someone found him guilty... but why the hell is the US trying to enforce Yemen judgements? Oh, right, were allies of some sort, we're just helping out....

Can't wait to see what the next justification will be.

IF there are people for whom neither criminal nor war rules/laws/procedures apply then we need to come up with a third category for them, as they aren't going away and stop trying to either squeeze them into current pigeonholes or chase them into the cracks of the framework of law and order.

[TheHammer]

How would your government determine that men such as Anwar are actually men such as Anwar? For all we know, the information they're using to sentence these people to death (by drone strike) is about as reliable as the information they used to sentence a country to invasion due to WMDs or some other shitty intelligence.

They make it pretty easy to spot them when they release videos such as Bin Laden did and as Anwar is doing. Is it possible mistakes could be made? Absolutely, but people make mistakes that kill others (deliberately or otherwise) every day. Not to sound callous, but thats simply a fact. However, again, in this particular case everything seems to be on the up and up.

[Samuel]

You know, I find it disingenios that Ossus is trying to pretend war does not require a standard of evidence. The Nuremburg trials have been concerned exclusively a very much legal proceeding over the laws of war, which seems to indicate that some standard of evidence is necessary.

Nope. The Nuremburg trials simply showed that there are protected individuals- you cannot target POWs, noncombatants or medics for example.

[D.Turtle]

I find it ironic that the group of citizens of the United States most likely to be extremely suspicious of the power of government is at the same time the group most likely to give that government almost unprecedented power - and defend that governmental power to the extreme.

[TheHammer]

Yes, why should a Filipino be angry with the US? I mean, it's not like his country was ruled by a megalomaniac who embezzeled billions of dollars from the country with covert support from the US, and, when he was leaving the country due to revolution, it's not like the US gave him safe passage from the nation to die in peace within the US's borders. I mean, why should any Filipino or Filipina be angry at the US at all? Why, it's nonsensical and should be dismissed outright!

So, yeah. That's basically what you've been looking like for this entire thread. "Yeah, I fucking love peace and justice and shit, but extrajudicial killings of US citizens and realpolitik demonstrations of power are how the world works and fuck you guys for questioning it and questioning me about it."

It's not as simple as that.

So, you're saying that a citizen of the Philippines can't be angry at Ferdinand Marcos for all the shit he pulled?

Way to try to distort what he was saying. Is that the only fucking thing you're good for? I'm not even sure that can be called a distortion. Which fallacy is it when someone's response has absolutely no bearing to the original statement?

They're not. They're just fat slobs wasting time on the Internet too, and relying on stupid generalizations and even outright lies to make up for the fact that all their whining hasn't actually changed anything.

Then why the fuck are you here, fattie? It's not like your masturbatory whining's going to do any good either. So go nut in your crying eyes and shut the fuck up if you feel that way about internet debates.

Again, a distortion. Just because your arguments are worthless and your tactics dishonest and pathetic, doesn't mean he feels that way about all internet debates.

[Shroom Man 777]

How would your government determine that men such as Anwar are actually men such as Anwar? For all we know, the information they're using to sentence these people to death (by drone strike) is about as reliable as the information they used to sentence a country to invasion due to WMDs or some other shitty intelligence.

They make it pretty easy to spot them when they release videos such as Bin Laden did and as Anwar is doing.

Again, how do you differentiate what Anwar is blubbering about from people like Phelps, the KKK, or whoever? He can say whatever he wants in the videos, but where's the proof that he's doing anything 'combat' related with the terrorizers?

I find it ironic that the group of citizens of the United States most likely to be extremely suspicious of the power of government is at the same time the group most likely to give that government almost unprecedented power - and defend that governmental power to the extreme.

Universal healthcare and homobortions represents a big government intrusion into the small business enterprises of big pharmaceutical corporation and is socialist and evil.

Universal deathcare is a freedomizing act, an all-American service that the rest of the world should be grateful for. It is what the indivisible hand of the free market demands.

If they determine their unmanned drone assassinations as carefully as they do with their invasions that entail risking thousands of their own soldiers in a years long investment of blood, life and treasure, then I would be satisfied.

I wouldn't...

Broomstick, you're alright. If only the world, or at least America, had more broomsticks than hammers, your country might actually clean up this mess rather than just hurt its own fingers.

[Samuel]

I find it ironic that the group of citizens of the United States most likely to be extremely suspicious of the power of government is at the same time the group most likely to give that government almost unprecedented power - and defend that governmental power to the extreme.

It is simple- they only oppose government power when their enemies have it because then it can be used against them. When their side has it, they can use it to accomplish their goals. I'm not sure what is suprising or odd about this.

[Master of Ossus]

I didn't. I read that Protocol time and again. International law allows to select a broad spectrum of lawful targets. Would getting rid of government officials before the Iraq war be acceptable?

No. There was no ongoing armed conflict, at that time. And there is a broad spectrum of lawful targets, which doesn't mean that everything is a lawful target. Just because the definition is broad does not give you permission to totally exclude it from your analysis.

Why? Ceasefire is not a peace treaty (which people run into time and again).

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK A TRUCE MEANS?

It means, among other things, that the two belligerents are no longer privileged to use lethal force against one another according to the rules of armed conflict. Because there is no longer an ongoing armed conflict.

Even when claiming you didn't ignore things, you still go through the effort to distort them and get them wrong.

To be fair, however, the conflict between Cuba and the terrorist organization Posada was a member of (the CIA, in other words) might be still counted as ongoing. You allowed ongoing conflicts to include non-state bodies as parties.

Conflicts can include non-state bodies. There is absolutely no scholarly dissent on this subject. The question is only whether Cuba's is an "ongoing armed conflict," which is a serious stretch, IMO.

Coulter actually does, if you stretch it. One: a conflict. There's one between (1) US and Afghanistan (2) US and Iraq. Two: lawful target. Coulter is an instigator of U.S. agression, and while she's not a soldier of the US that goes to Afghanistan or Iraq and kills people, she could be related to that. By the Protocol, you could make a case to kill her if you could argue that she furthers enemy goals and her elimination would give you a military advantage. And as for Chomsky, no, until he is chosen as a "lawful target", you can't kill him. But what is required for that? Simply an assessment that would indicate his death would hinder enemy military efforts and further your own ones. You just need to designate him as a military threat. It is hard with Chomsky, because he's not one. But it is far easier with Islamic clerics. What if a cleric preaches Jihad? He furthers enemy goals! Off with his head.

You're "stretch[ing] it" beyond any possible relevance. Absolutely none of this passes the straight-face test.

But even more seriously, you seem to be applying a definition of "lawful target" which differs completely from the definition which is used by, among others, the US military.

Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.

Coulter makes no effective contribution to an enemy's military capability, nor does Chomsky. Most clerics, similarly, make no effective contribution to the enemy's capabilities. But bin Laden and al-Awlaki both meet this test.

Yeah, I know, but it is far more simple to call them legal assassinations or liquidations.

Fair enough.

"On the front line"? That requirement is not even in the Protocol. He can be deep in the rear. He's still a legal target.

True, but on the front line just makes it blatantly obvious. There is absolutely no ambiguity in your hypothetical. None. A military officer on the front lines of combat is a lawful target. How could such a person not be?

The only thing you need to do it is to never get in a Nuremberg situation, i.e. remain the victorious party in wars. Not hard when you're the USA. Also, your soldiers are immune to international prosecution, so you can crap on the international law.

But none were tried for killing officials and officers. That's not a crime. So if you prove that Object X is an enemy official in a position of power, not just a mere civilian, you can kill him - even if he is a civilian - and it would be legal.

Only if he is a lawful target. He must be making an effective contribution to the enemy's capabilities. Most politicians do not make this contribution, although I concede that some (e.g., Presidents or similar commanders-in-chief) do.

As for your claims that only losers get tried for warcrimes, the US has itself prosecuted many of its soldiers for ignoring the LOAC during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously the Americans take it seriously, as was spelled out by none other than Harold Koh.

Let there be no doubt: the Obama Administration is firmly committed to complying with all applicable law, including the laws of war, in all aspects of these ongoing armed conflicts.

[Master of Ossus]

You know, I find it disingenios that Ossus is trying to pretend war does not require a standard of evidence. The Nuremburg trials have been concerned exclusively a very much legal proceeding over the laws of war, which seems to indicate that some standard of evidence is necessary.

I have highlighted the relevant term from PeZook's disingenuous opening statement. The distinction is self-evident: bin Laden and al-Awlaki are not on trial.

But that aside, while it's been well established by now that international law does not put an obligation for any sort of due process to be given to "lawful targets", it doesn't mean you can't introduce a more structured process, or that you shouldn't. Polish resistance also had an assassination program during WWII, and they actually had underground courts examining evidence against potential targets, including Nazi occupiers before any assassination was carried out. And they were operating in deep conspiracy against direct occupation, fighting for national survival. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. They didn't have to set up underground courts ; It was, in fact, very risky to do so. They still did.

The fact of life is that the US is not fighting for its life here. It is the most powerful country on Earth, Al Quaeda will never be able to actually destroy or even seriously threaten it. Additionally, the US is claiming to have the moral high ground, to protect democracy, freedom and apple pie etc. In fact, calling the whole thing an actual war governed by the laws of war etc. is often considered a total joke, especially since Al-Quaeda isn't even a single organization.

The legal term is an "ongoing armed conflict." It obviously meets this definition. The US does have the moral high ground because it was not the aggressor and has made a good faith effort to comply with the laws of armed conflict, where al Qaeda has totally ignored them.

They could definitely afford to determine al-Awlaki's status as per the Geneva Conventions (which BTW do put an obligation to determine a combatant's status in front a tribunal if the guy's status is unknown...) in a more public, more transparent way with more oversight. They didn't do it, which makes people leery at their high and mighty claims to moral high ground, national self defence etc.

The Geneva Convention requires this determination to be made after the guy has surrendered and been captured. It never requires that a court make a determination beforehand as to whether or not an individual is a lawful target or not. With good reason.

And how, precisely, do you envision this as working? You'd have a trial before a judge in which the guy's status as a lawful combatant would be predetermined by... who? The US? That wouldn't satisfy your objective, and in any case American judges have no jurisdiction to handle this type of claim. You can't seek declaratory judgment by the ICC because the ICC doesn't have that authority (with good reason--the ICC recognizes that lawful targets don't have a right to due process). Who would prosecute? Who would defend? How could either side claim to represent what they do, under such a case?

I live in a world where making good faith efforts to comply with international law during an armed conflict gives you the moral high ground over people who deliberately, with no warning or provocation, attack civilian targets and kill thousands of civilians. Obviously that's not the world in which PeZook wants to live.

[K. A. Pital]

No. There was no ongoing armed conflict, at that time. And there is a broad spectrum of lawful targets, which doesn't mean that everything is a lawful target. Just because the definition is broad does not give you permission to totally exclude it from your analysis.

When do Iraqis get the right to kill off American officials? Only after Americans attack their nation? When they issue the ultimatum?

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK A TRUCE MEANS? It means, among other things, that the two belligerents are no longer privileged to use lethal force against one another according to the rules of armed conflict. Because there is no longer an ongoing armed conflict. Even when claiming you didn't ignore things, you still go through the effort to distort them and get them wrong.

To be fair, they have recently used lethal forces against one another, so you could technically argue that the ceasefire is not strictly observed by either DPRK or the ROK, and so there's a low-intensity conflict ongoing.

Conflicts can include non-state bodies. There is absolutely no scholarly dissent on this subject. The question is only whether Cuba's is an "ongoing armed conflict," which is a serious stretch, IMO.

To my knowledge: (1) the CIA sponsored acts of terror against Cuba (2) there were no treaties, ceasefires or any other types of agreements between the CIA and Cuba which would signify an end to the hostilities.

You're "stretch[ing] it" beyond any possible relevance. Absolutely none of this passes the straight-face test. But even more seriously, you seem to be applying a definition of "lawful target" which differs completely from the definition which is used by, among others, the US military. ... Coulter makes no effective contribution to an enemy's military capability, nor does Chomsky. Most clerics, similarly, make no effective contribution to the enemy's capabilities. But bin Laden and al-Awlaki both meet this test.

And how exactly does Awlaki meet this test? Besides, I never said a putative target should "pass this test" as in, really be a military target. Using bad evidence (what about a cleric who is meeting a person from Al-Quaeda - is he automatically part of Al-Q?) can lead to killing people who aren't legitimate targets.

True, but on the front line just makes it blatantly obvious. There is absolutely no ambiguity in your hypothetical. None. A military officer on the front lines of combat is a lawful target. How could such a person not be?

I never said there was any ambiguity.

Only if he is a lawful target. He must be making an effective contribution to the enemy's capabilities. Most politicians do not make this contribution, although I concede that some (e.g., Presidents or similar commanders-in-chief) do.

Presidents, CIA analysts who further, plan, control and observe drone strikes in Pakistan/Yemen, etc. are fully legitimate military targets, regardless of their location. They can be located deep behind the front lines, but they are legal targets nonetheless. Military propagandists who work inside the armed forces are also legitimate targets (unlike Coulter, who holds no ties to the military).

As for your claims that only losers get tried for warcrimes, the US has itself prosecuted many of its soldiers for ignoring the LOAC during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously the Americans take it seriously, as was spelled out by none other than Harold Koh.

Let there be no doubt: the Obama Administration is firmly committed to complying with all applicable law, including the laws of war, in all aspects of these ongoing armed conflicts.

Um... My claim was not that "only losers try for warcrimes", but that the US, with its position, could easily avoid trying anyone for war crimes, and there would be absolutely no capability for other nations to enforce justice (US law forbids giving soldiers and other personnel to other nations for trial). Other than, well, the aforementioned surgical killings. That's what I was talking about.

[Master of Ossus]

When do Iraqis get the right to kill off American officials? Only after Americans attack their nation? When they issue the ultimatum?

When an ongoing armed conflict exists between the two states.

To be fair, they have recently used lethal forces against one another, so you could technically argue that the ceasefire is not strictly observed by either DPRK or the ROK, and so there's a low-intensity conflict ongoing.

Right. One side violated the truce--in many contexts, that is considered a serious breach of international law.

To my knowledge: (1) the CIA sponsored acts of terror against Cuba (2) there were no treaties, ceasefires or any other types of agreements between the CIA and Cuba which would signify an end to the hostilities.

There is also a functional dimension to classifying a conflict as an "ongoing armed conflict." While a formal treaty or other diplomatic cessation of hostilities is unquestionably sufficient to suspend the right of self-defense and thus terminate the privileged use of lethal force, there must also be a functional ongoing state of hostilities between the two states for a conflict to be considered "ongoing." Cuba and the US... don't have that. I mean... there's really no argument otherwise.

And how exactly does Awlaki meet this test?

V. Constitutive elements of direct participation in hostilities
In order to qualify as direct participation in hostilities, a specific act must meet the
following cumulative criteria:
1. the act must be likely to adversely affect the military operations or military
capacity of a party to an armed conflict or, alternatively, to inflict death, injury,
or destruction on persons or objects protected against direct attack (threshold
of harm);

Al-Awlaki has gone out of his way to meet with militants and out of his way to encourage militants to engage in terrorism and other acts of violence against the United States and its assets.

2. there must be a direct causal link between the act and the harm likely to result
either from that act, or from a coordinated military operation of which that act
constitutes an integral part (direct causation);

Which there is, see Nidal Hassan.

3. the act must be specifically designed to directly cause the required threshold of
harm in support of a party to the conflict and to the detriment of another
(belligerent nexus).

Which it was: al-Awlaki has repeatedly called upon militants to kill Americans.

He meets all of the criteria.

By the broader definition that you presented, al-Awlaki is obviously also a military target because his active efforts to encourage militancy against the United States meaningfully enhances al Qaeda's military capabilities.

Besides, I never said a putative target should "pass this test" as in, really be a military target. Using bad evidence (what about a cleric who is meeting a person from Al-Quaeda - is he automatically part of Al-Q?) can lead to killing people who aren't legitimate targets.

At least theoretically possible, in which case the people who ordered the strike could arguably be tried for war crimes. However, I should also point out that what is required by international law is never clairvoyance, but rather a "best efforts" standard. If someone looks like a lawful target and smells like a lawful target, he is a lawful target even if (with the benefit of hindsight, or whatever) it turns out that his activities do not actually qualify him as a lawful target. The IHL and other bodies of international law meant to regulate armed conflicts are all meant to be functional, so they can meaningfully be applied by soldiers in the field (who are often cold, hungry, scared, tired, angry, stressed, and confused--to name but a VERY few). The LOAC don't turn someone into a war criminal because they make a mistake, provided that they had sufficient cause to believe that their activities were lawful. It doesn't require a belligerent to run out, investigate, gather perfect information, and then decide what to do. Making a best-efforts estimation and concluding that the target is lawful is sufficient.

I never said there was any ambiguity.

Then why did you make such a big deal about it? I'm genuinely curious, what did you think it was going to show? When did I give any indication whatever that this was difficult?

Presidents, CIA analysts who further, plan, control and observe drone strikes in Pakistan/Yemen, etc. are fully legitimate military targets, regardless of their location. They can be located deep behind the front lines, but they are legal targets nonetheless. Military propagandists who work inside the armed forces are also legitimate targets (unlike Coulter, who holds no ties to the military).

...

Uh...

Yeah. So...?

I mean, concession accepted and all, but...

Um... My claim was not that "only losers try for warcrimes", but that the US, with its position, could easily avoid trying anyone for war crimes, and there would be absolutely no capability for other nations to enforce justice (US law forbids giving soldiers and other personnel to other nations for trial). Other than, well, the aforementioned surgical killings. That's what I was talking about.

Yet America does not abuse this privilege. There are many examples of American soldiers being prosecuted and convicted for the unlawful use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq by fellow Americans. Moreover, there are many international groups that have been set up to prosecute and try war criminals.

[K. A. Pital]

Yet America does not abuse this privilege. There are many examples of American soldiers being prosecuted and convicted for the unlawful use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And there are instances where the soldiers were prosecuted without any result. There are also new reports of abuses and massacres and torture in both Afghanistan and Iraq coming to light, and it is obvious that the US only reacts to certain cases, while huge numbers of such cases go unpunished. America abuses this priviledge and there were more than one instance of America not trying war criminals, but instead decorating them. Often war crimes were uncovered only after a substantial time has passed, indicating that the American military was complicit in covering up genuine war crimes and no trials of any sort have occured. America abuses its position, and its soldiers regularily commit war crimes. Most wars that involved American interventions also had American soldiers commiting war crimes, the majority of those unpunished and I believe a large share not even uncovered properly.

Al-Awlaki has gone out of his way to meet with militants and out of his way to encourage militants to engage in terrorism and other acts of violence against the United States and its assets. ... Which there is, see Nidal Hassan. ... Which it was: al-Awlaki has repeatedly called upon militants to kill Americans.

"Going out of your way" to meet militants and "encouraging" them with words are not indicative of contributing to a military effort. Otherwise a US reporter who cheers up US troops becomes a legitimate target. You seem to make a leap in logic. If a propagandist does not contribute to a military effort, he is not a legitimate target even if he "calls to kill Americans".

At least theoretically possible, in which case the people who ordered the strike could arguably be tried for war crimes.

"Theoretically possible" and "arguably could"? See above. Also, your nation is a fucking joke.

By Dec. 3, Mr. Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. [He had taken at least 9 peroneal strikes from two M.P.'s for being "noncompliant and combative."]
... When Sgt. James P. Boland saw Mr. Habibullah on Dec. 3, he was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains. Sergeant Boland ... had entered the cell with [Specialists Anthony M. Morden and Brian E. Cammack]...
kneeing the prisoner sharply in the thigh, "maybe a couple" of times. Mr. Habibullah's limp body swayed back and forth in the chains.
When medics arrived, they found Habibullah dead.

Charged in May 2005 with assault, dereliction of duty, and lying to investigators. Suspected of stepping on Dilawar's bare foot, grabbing his beard, kicking him, and then ordering the detainee to remain chained to the ceiling. At trial Salcedo pled guilty and received a sentence of a one-grade reduction in rank, $1000 fine, and a written reprimand.

So let me repeat it once again: this is fucking mockery. Your nation gives people a demotion and $1000 fine for murdering prisoners. Your nation has special legislation which forbids any other nation trying to charge and convict your soldiers, denying the authority of any and all international bodies.

If I once again hear your tiresome bullshit about how I should trust the US to kill "lawful targets" and "try people for war crimes" if they suddenly kill the wrong person, I'm going to puke.

Your nation never tried a terror unit, for example, it gave this unit distinguishing award. Why should I trust the US with trials of war criminals when it is a matter of fact that a large number of war crimes commited by the USA during interventions go unpunished?

[Master of Ossus]

And there are instances where the soldiers were prosecuted without any result. There are also new reports of abuses and massacres and torture in both Afghanistan and Iraq coming to light, and it is obvious that the US only reacts to certain cases, while huge numbers of such cases go unpunished.

Evidence?

America abuses this priviledge and there were more than one instance of America not trying war criminals, but instead decorating them. Often war crimes were uncovered only after a substantial time has passed, indicating that the American military was complicit in covering up genuine war crimes and no trials of any sort have occured. America abuses its position, and its soldiers regularily commit war crimes. Most wars that involved American interventions also had American soldiers commiting war crimes, the majority of those unpunished and I believe a large share not even uncovered properly.

Evidence?

"Going out of your way" to meet militants and "encouraging" them with words are not indicative of contributing to a military effort. Otherwise a US reporter who cheers up US troops becomes a legitimate target. You seem to make a leap in logic. If a propagandist does not contribute to a military effort, he is not a legitimate target even if he "calls to kill Americans".

Yet al-Awlaki did go much further because his efforts were successful in multiple cases--oftentimes unambiguously, as in the stabbing of Roshonara Choudhry. It's also disingenuous to present this as a case of "US vs. the World" in terms of his classification. Yemen has called him "a fixture of jihad 101."

"Theoretically possible" and "arguably could"? See above. Also, your nation is a fucking joke.

This from a Russian?

Substantively, though, you didn't respond to the fundamental point: that the US is obviously complying with international law to at least the extent necessary. Even the most ambitious of al-Awlaki's defenders would doubtless concede that there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence against him, which is more than sufficient to uphold a finding that he is a lawful target (remember that these laws do not require clairvoyance or proof beyond reasonable doubt--merely enough to support the finding, and compliance with the other requirements like proportionality).

If I once again hear your tiresome bullshit about how I should trust the US to kill "lawful targets" and "try people for war crimes" if they suddenly kill the wrong person, I'm going to puke.

I have NEVER claimed that you should "trust the US." I have pointed out that the US's actions are entirely legal with respect to al-Awlaki because they are consistent with international law. I'm sick of your drive-bys (which, btw, included claiming that Iran is in an ongoing armed conflict with the US because the US has imposed economic sanctions against them--:lol:).

Your nation never tried a terror unit, for example, it gave this unit distinguishing award. Why should I trust the US with trials of war criminals when it is a matter of fact that a large number of war crimes commited by the USA during interventions go unpunished?

You don't have to "trust" anything. If you hate the way international law works, then good for you, but don't run around pretending that targeting al-Awlaki is somehow unlawful when it obviously is not.

[K. A. Pital]

Evidence?

The aforementioned Haditha killings, Bagram killings, Tiger force, Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files and much, much more. "Many substantiated cases were closed with a letter of reprimand, a fine or, in more than half the cases, no action at all." Typical attitude when it comes to punishing your own soldiers. I'm not saying other nations are better, mind you, heh.

Yet al-Awlaki did go much further because his efforts were successful in multiple cases--oftentimes unambiguously, as in the stabbing of Roshonara Choudhry. It's also disingenuous to present this as a case of "US vs. the World" in terms of his classification. Yemen has called him "a fixture of jihad 101."

I am not saying that the US cannot have other nations favorably looking at their actions. Besides:

She had made "very full admissions" to the police, saying that she had been influenced by dozens of hours of sermons that she had watched of Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. She said her attack was to punish Timms for voting for the Iraq War, and revenge for the Iraqi people

Hmm. So it seems that: Awlaki did not contact Roshonara or command her to knife the man, she did it of her own will. Besides, Roshonara's actions (if she would claim she is a member of Al-Quaeda carrying out a military operation, for example) are completely legal, too: Timms was a government official who had direct guilt in commanding a start of British involvement in the Iraq war.

This from a Russian?

Yeah. This from a Russian, whose nation is also a fucking joke.

Substantively, though, you didn't respond to the fundamental point: that the US is obviously complying with international law to at least the extent necessary. Even the most ambitious of al-Awlaki's defenders would doubtless concede that there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence against him, which is more than sufficient to uphold a finding that he is a lawful target (remember that these laws do not require clairvoyance or proof beyond reasonable doubt--merely enough to support the finding, and compliance with the other requirements like proportionality).

If Awlaki would claim he is a member of Al-Q, you wouldn't need any other evidence and you could kill him there and then. He does not. There's no direct evidence implicating him.

I have NEVER claimed that you should "trust the US." I have pointed out that the US's actions are entirely legal with respect to al-Awlaki because they are consistent with international law. I'm sick of your drive-bys (which, btw, included claiming that Iran is in an ongoing armed conflict with the US because the US has imposed economic sanctions against them--:lol:).

You want to kill Awlaki even though, to my knowledge, he never accepted being characterized as an acting member or, more than that, commander of Al-Quaeda. Unlike Osama Bin Laden. However, feel free to correct me. If you're being so lax with evidence required to frame him as an enemy combatant, I'm being lax with "armed conflict" evidence. Iran can be thought of as having an armed conflict (a low-intensity one) by sponsoring operations against the US in Iraq. Formal declaration of war is absolutely irrelevant here, the Geneva conventions consider armed conflicts arising by de facto existence, not by formal declarations. The intensity of conflict can be low or high.

You don't have to "trust" anything. If you hate the way international law works, then good for you, but don't run around pretending that targeting al-Awlaki is somehow unlawful when it obviously is not.

I merely said that it would be extremely easy to kill people marginally related to Al-Quaeda (Awlaki is hardly different from other Jihad clerics) by your standards and avoid trials for misdetermination, because the US personnel has avoided severe punishment for much more serious shit, as evidenced by Haditha, Tiger force, Bagram killings, etc., and foreign nations have absolutely no ability to prosecute US personnel. Only the US has this ability, reserved for itself.

Therefore, yes, you can say that I'm skeptic here. Your legality of Awlaki targeting rests upon framing him as an enemy personnel. The evidence so far has been insufficient, unlike in case of OBL. Therefore, don't act like you have 100% legal ground to stand on. You don't.

If an American soldier massacres Iraqis tomorrow and then on trial says that he was listening to Coulter tapes, would that make Coulter a legal target? I believe not.