MarshalPurnell wrote:
Bolded the actually relevant portion of what Vympel posted, since all of the above referred specifically to civilians.
Rubbish. The question of
when a civilian becomes a member of an organized armed group is directly addressed on the linked page:-
It can be difficult to tell the difference between members of organized armed groups and the civilian population. Civilians support insurgencies in many different ways including, at times, by directly participating in hostilities in a spontaneous, sporadic or unorganized way. However, civilians cannot be regarded as members of an organized armed group unless they assume a " continuous combat function, " i.e. unless they assume continuous function involving their direct participation in hostilities. Members of organized armed groups do not have the same privileged status as combatants of State armed forces and, therefore, can be subject to domestic prosecution even for simply taking up arms.
These consdierations do not magically vanish into the ether because Awlaki "is an acknowledged member of AQAP." You have to
establish continuous combat function.
And in any case none of this reflects on the legality of killing al-Awlaki because he was an American citizen.
Which is not what I was talking about.
It is instead an attack on the use of drone strikes against Al Qaeda, period, since his interpretation of the article would require the assumption that every member of Al Qaeda is a civilian and would require some adjudication beforehand that they are combatants (by whom?) before direct attack could be legal.
Indeed it would, unless they were engaging in hostilities at the actual time they were killed or are known to carry out a continuous combat function and thus lose their protection from direct attack. This is a problem, why?
