US suspect possibly targeted for drone attack

[gambit]

There's no such thing as one Al-Qaeda organization. There are various armed groups with their ideology which is related to their internal affairs.

That is a silly argument. What is the point of entering the Al-Qaeda franchise if you and your group is not going to adopt the Al-Qaeda's mission? And it is pointless argument to boot. So what if the original Al-Qaeda organization is no longer any organizational semblance of itself? McDonald's restaurants are franchises, does that mean the McDonald's in San Fran have nothing in relationship to the MD in NYC or Honolulu? By the way, the MD in Honolulu serves an island food named 'saimin' that would be alien to the MD in NYC. The point here is that if these various groups associate themselves with Al-Qaeda, that mean just like McDonald's, they found something about the original Al-Qaeda's mission, ideology, and principles attractive.

So there's no justification to target people or dehumanize people that have nothing against our nation. They seek to achieve objectives in their own nations and most of the time it has nothing to do with terrorism.

Right...That mean I am going to gather up a bunch of Catholics, call ourselves Al-Qaeda of Nevada, and proceed to tell the world that we are a charity group for widows and orphans.

If we're going after criminal gangs then we would be going after many more people and foreign organizations, not just Muslims. Because this is what media makes it appear as if we are going after 'evil'. If we're going after evil we'd execute those terrorists in the apache helicopters and blackwater terrorists and much more non Muslim 'evil' people.

Al-Qaeda is not a criminal gang. You can try to cover this up but it is not going to work.

 

[Falcon29]

they found something about the original Al-Qaeda's mission, ideology, and principles attractive.

Tell me what their mission is

Al-Qaeda is not a criminal gang. You can try to cover this up but it is not going to work.

Whatever you want to call it, separatists groups, other terrorist organizations, criminal organizations, we're not going after anyone else elsewhere who's 'evil' or taking others to the ICC. Because it's a bs threat only intended to secure interests we want overseas.

 

[gambit]

Tell me what their mission is

Al-Qaeda's mission is to take care of widows and orphans around the world, as in producing more of them in the name of Islam.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Killing a 16 year old American in a drone strike was legal, wasn't it?

American govt is a bigot. They make a huge deal about 'American citizens', while relentlessly killing Pakistani civilian non combatants, as if they are 'less human'.

Not at all. Not when he happens to be an active member of Al-Qaida in Yemen, under the leadership of his elder brother, Anwar Al-Awlaki.

He's good to be killed

 

[Mighty Caty]

Do remember, even killing at war is still considered a Homicide.

When i was in staff college, we argue a lot about this in the prespect of law. What actually do define as a legal combatant?

In the Law of War (Jus in Bello) the term "Enemy Combatant" was defined as a person who actively and directly take part of an armed conflict (Note : Armed Conflict, not battle nor act of killing).

That would have mean anyone who directly involved in the war was a legitimate target. That was pretty much a big set of people, ranging from a person who raise a rifle and fire it toward to the opponent force to the person who grow rice that would supported the force substainment. As one can argue without the supporting staff, there could not be an active engagement.
However, in general term, under customary international law, one have to be in an active role of combat (Define as an act of aggression, ie the person who fired the rifle) to be a legitimate target (That would protect the issue of civilian that merely helping the war effort). As an act of hostility have to be maintain and "decease" when the act/threat is terminated (ie no more aggression). However, as law usually is a balanced field, the law also have a clause that outline the extreme circumstance called compelling law (Jus cogens). And that would literally granting killing right to whoever in the vincinity of the engagement. Thus labelling everyone a legitimate target. But the determination of said event should be following a case by case basis.

So now, it come back to the same question, who can be killed and who cannot be killed?

Basically, there are no definition, a civilian can also become legitimate target when that particular civilian part-take on an armed conflict. By doing so, he or she would instantly become an unlawful combatant. The precedent however have to be on the merit on how they define the person and what their role to part take on the issue, of course, it would not be logical to kill a farmer that's growing rice and food for the other side, however, the degree of participation is determined by the role of the said subject, and not just soldier who's shooting at you would become legitimate target, say for example, if a person is loading a magazine clip for the enemy, where he is not armed nor not part of the army or militia of either belligerent country, he could also be consider a legitimate target by compelling law.

Now, this bring us to another issue. What is the target nationality affect the legitimacy of the target?

The simple problem is, under the Laws of War. That a lawful combatant can only be after pledging Allegiance of either belligerent. And Taliban is not a "Regulated Force" nor the location he was in being an "Occupied" Terrorities. Therefore Civilian (Of any nationality) could not be counted as a Legal Combatant if they were to pick up arms anf fights. That would mean that civilian, regardless of nationality, would become an "Hostile Civilian" (Otherwise knows as Common Criminal) that would have been a mere Local Law Enforcement Problem.

The fact that He is an American, mean the CIA have no juridiction to use their asset on him, as CIA does not have juridiction on American Subject (Which was a rule that frequently broke) so there are literally no legality on the drone strikes here as there are no act of war committed, nor was he an enemy combatant.

Think about it, if an American killed another American in India or any part of the world but not America, he would not be counted as an enemy combatant, he would have been a common criminal.

However, the US also would need to take into account for the Proportional of force principle, although both customary law and law of war does not ilterate what kind of response is inproportional, the customary law have a clasue that the damage done to the intented target should be proportional to the damag deal by the target (Ie, you would not use a bomber to level out a house if there are just 2 people firing at you). All response would need to be apporiate and proportional. There are law that regulate unecessary response/damage via certain type of weaponary (Like combat shotgun, cluster explosive or land mind), there are no word to define how or what is a proportional response.

The US would have to deliberate their finding in 3 seperate considerations:

1.) Could the subject be claimed as "enemy combatant" ?
2.) Could the US Law Enforcement authority have juridiction to that subject
3.) Is the response proportional.

 

[gambit]

Do remember, even killing at war is still considered a Homicide.

When i was in staff college, we argue a lot about this in the prespect of law. What actually do define as a legal combatant?

In the Law of War (Jus in Bello) the term "Enemy Combatant" was defined as a person who actively and directly take part of an armed conflict (Note : Armed Conflict, not battle nor act of killing).

That would have mean anyone who directly involved in the war was a legitimate target. That was pretty much a big set of people, ranging from a person who raise a rifle and fire it toward to the opponent force to the person who grow rice that would supported the force substainment. As one can argue without the supporting staff, there could not be an active engagement.
However, in general term, under customary international law, one have to be in an active role of combat (Define as an act of aggression, ie the person who fired the rifle) to be a legitimate target (That would protect the issue of civilian that merely helping the war effort). As an act of hostility have to be maintain and "decease" when the act/threat is terminated (ie no more aggression). However, as law usually is a balanced field, the law also have a clause that outline the extreme circumstance called compelling law (Jus cogens). And that would literally granting killing right to whoever in the vincinity of the engagement. Thus labelling everyone a legitimate target. But the determination of said event should be following a case by case basis.

So now, it come back to the same question, who can be killed and who cannot be killed?

Basically, there are no definition, a civilian can also become legitimate target when that particular civilian part-take on an armed conflict. By doing so, he or she would instantly become an unlawful combatant. The precedent however have to be on the merit on how they define the person and what their role to part take on the issue, of course, it would not be logical to kill a farmer that's growing rice and food for the other side, however, the degree of participation is determined by the role of the said subject, and not just soldier who's shooting at you would become legitimate target, say for example, if a person is loading a magazine clip for the enemy, where he is not armed nor not part of the army or militia of either belligerent country, he could also be consider a legitimate target by compelling law.

Now, this bring us to another issue. What is the target nationality affect the legitimacy of the target?

The simple problem is, under the Laws of War. That a lawful combatant can only be after pledging Allegiance of either belligerent. And Taliban is not a "Regulated Force" nor the location he was in being an "Occupied" Terrorities. Therefore Civilian (Of any nationality) could not be counted as a Legal Combatant if they were to pick up arms anf fights. That would mean that civilian, regardless of nationality, would become an "Hostile Civilian" (Otherwise knows as Common Criminal) that would have been a mere Local Law Enforcement Problem.

The fact that He is an American, mean the CIA have no juridiction to use their asset on him, as CIA does not have juridiction on American Subject (Which was a rule that frequently broke) so there are literally no legality on the drone strikes here as there are no act of war committed, nor was he an enemy combatant.

Think about it, if an American killed another American in India or any part of the world but not America, he would not be counted as an enemy combatant, he would have been a common criminal.

However, the US also would need to take into account for the Proportional of force principle, although both customary law and law of war does not ilterate what kind of response is inproportional, the customary law have a clasue that the damage done to the intented target should be proportional to the damag deal by the target (Ie, you would use a bomber to level out a house if there are just 2 people firing at you). All response would need to be apporiate and proportional. There are law that regulate unecessary response/damage via certain type of weaponary (Like combat shotgun, cluster explosive or land mind), there are no word to define how or what is a proportional response.

The US would have to deliberate their finding in 3 seperate considerations:

1.) Could the subject be claimed as "enemy combatant" ?
2.) Could the US Law Enforcement authority have juridiction to that subject
3.) Is the response proportional.

The legality revolves around the question: What is Al-Qaeda?

Is Al-Qaeda a mere religious organization? Yes, Islam is the religious foundation of the organization. But that is no different than Catholicism is the religious foundation OF THE MEMBERS of the Italian Mafia, not of the organization itself.

As far as I know, there is no law that says: 'It is illegal to join Al-Qaeda.' as in Al-Qaeda is specifically mentioned.

If we are to treat Al-Qaeda in the same view as organized crime, then our responses to Al-Qaeda would be reactive, not preemptive.

But if we are to treat Al-Qaeda as a combatant army, like the Russian Army or the Wehrmacht or even the Taliban, then just as it is legal to kill such a combatant, it is legal to kill an Al-Qaeda fighter -- before he has committed any act of combat or of terrorism. The fact that he is an illegal combatant in the first place only further support the legality of taking preemptive actions against him.

Is classifying Al-Qaeda a criminal organization, like the Mafia, valid? No. It is not valid.

Organized crime groups, large or small, structured or not, usually do not seek to subvert the current political system, whether that system is largely democratic like the Western countries, nominally democratic like the Asian countries, or dictatorial like Russia and China. They seeks to control the agents inside the system to facilitate their illegal activities for gain of undeclared profits. On the other hand, when countries go to war against each other, a regime change is usually the goal, if not always the goal.

Al-Qaeda may be a transnational organization and that it may need clandestine support from sympathetic agents inside host governments to survive, but its goal is no different from that of state level -- regime change of the targeted country. Therefore, it makes only sense to view and treat Al-Qaeda as a combatant army, and not another mere organized crime entity.

And if it is legal to preemptively kill a legal combatant of a legal army, as any war have allowed, it is legal to preemptive kill an illegal combatant of an illegal army.

 

[Mighty Caty]

The legality revolves around the question: What is Al-Qaeda?

Is Al-Qaeda a mere religious organization? Yes, Islam is the religious foundation of the organization. But that is no different than Catholicism is the religious foundation OF THE MEMBERS of the Italian Mafia, not of the organization itself.

As far as I know, there is no law that says: 'It is illegal to join Al-Qaeda.' as in Al-Qaeda is specifically mentioned.

If we are to treat Al-Qaeda in the same view as organized crime, then our responses to Al-Qaeda would be reactive, not preemptive.

But if we are to treat Al-Qaeda as a combatant army, like the Russian Army or the Wehrmacht or even the Taliban, then just as it is legal to kill such a combatant, it is legal to kill an Al-Qaeda fighter -- before he has committed any act of combat or of terrorism. The fact that he is an illegal combatant in the first place only further support the legality of taking preemptive actions against him.

Is classifying Al-Qaeda a criminal organization, like the Mafia, valid? No. It is not valid.

Organized crime groups, large or small, structured or not, usually do not seek to subvert the current political system, whether that system is largely democratic like the Western countries, nominally democratic like the Asian countries, or dictatorial like Russia and China. They seeks to control the agents inside the system to facilitate their illegal activities for gain of undeclared profits. On the other hand, when countries go to war against each other, a regime change is usually the goal, if not always the goal.

Al-Qaeda may be a transnational organization and that it may need clandestine support from sympathetic agents inside host governments to survive, but its goal is no different from that of state level -- regime change of the targeted country. Therefore, it makes only sense to view and treat Al-Qaeda as a combatant army, and not another mere organized crime entity.

And if it is legal to preemptively kill a legal combatant of a legal army, as any war have allowed, it is legal to preemptive kill an illegal combatant of an illegal army.

Let set aside duty and participation for a moment, let's assume the subject is engaging in an armed conflict.

The premier of the argument is the status of lawful combatant, to proof the subject is a lawful combatant means one need to proof the status the subject fighting for the belligerent country, that would mean the argument of whether or not AQ is the regonized fighting force for Taliban and to some extend, if AQ represent the country of Afghanistan.

If one can prove the co-relation of the above, one can establish that a Taliban fighter is a lawful combatant

However, the case would be much much more complicated if you factor in the legitimacy of war and the nationality of the subject.

The war in Afghanistan was declared by US led NATO to the Taliban, the then de facto government of Afghanistan. The express objective would clear all AQ operative as lawful combatant INSIDE Afghanistan

However, that precedent ended when Taliban were expelled and replaced by the current government regime (Karzai Government). The belligerency can be arguably gone and NATO and US forces stationed in Afghanistan is of good will of the Karzai government. That would instantly relegate the AQ operator status into unlawful combatant, as the war enter the insurrection stage.

The premier now would change to whether or not the clause of war for the American has been gone, as the Afghanistan government has been changed hand, what the situation after have transformed into a Civil War, where US have officially lose the belligerency since the US war ended in Afghanistan

If I have to submit my own opinion, I would argue that AQ has no longer maintain their legal combatant status, and when you put in a US national fighting a war on the other side against the American to which American was no longer an official part of, this matter would instantly become an act of treason, which would relegate into Law Enforcement Affair.

But in the end, I am not a judge, this is merely my opinion

 

[gambit]

Let set aside duty and participation for a moment, let's assume the subject is engaging in an armed conflict.

The premier of the argument is the status of lawful combatant, to proof the subject is a lawful combatant means one need to proof the status the subject fighting for the belligerent country, that would mean the argument of whether or not AQ is the regonized fighting force for Taliban and to some extend, if AQ represent the country of Afghanistan.

If one can prove the co-relation of the above, one can establish that a Taliban fighter is a lawful combatant

The problem here is that the Taliban was never the legitimate authority figure in Afghanistan in the first place, at least not in the ways people commonly accepted as being characteristics of a 'legit' government.

A major component of governance is the ability to secure one's position from contestant authority figures and Afghanistan, all the way up to the time the US entered the country, was in a low intensity civil war from contestant authority figures scattered throughout the country. It is only when an authority figure established himself or itself as non-disputable can foreigners begins to find themselves bereft of alternatives for their petitions.

Korea cannot have two presidents, hence we have North and South Koreas. China cannot have two presidents, hence we have a civil war where one side was defeated and fled into physical exile away from the main geographical region that is coveted for being associated with what is China. Germany was divided post WW II into two politically distinct entities. For Afghanistan, the Taliban was occasionally defeated when it tried to assert its authority over the country. A famous anti-Taliban resistant leader was Ahmad Massoud. Up until 2001, even with the assistance of Pakistan, the Taliban could not pacify all of Afghanistan.

With no lawful or at least nominally recognized authority figure in Afghanistan, any combatant from inside Afghanistan that take up arms against a foreign state is an illegal combatant.

However, the case would be much much more complicated if you factor in the legitimacy of war and the nationality of the subject.

The war in Afghanistan was declared by US led NATO to the Taliban, the then de facto government of Afghanistan. The express objective would clear all AQ operative as lawful combatant INSIDE Afghanistan

The legitimacy of any war is independent of the status and characters of the participants. If a country have a legitimate grievance against another country, assuming victim status for now, even if the victim country hires mercenaries, who are always illegal combatants, the mercenary forces do not detract from the moral just cause of the war. Technically speaking, the WW II era famous Flying Tigers American airmen who fought in China for the Chinese people against Imperial Japan were -- mercenaries. China was righteously the victim then and American mercenaries took nothing away from China as the victim of Imperial Japan's aggression.

AQ was a guest organization under the generosity and protection of the Taliban inside territory controlled by the Taliban. AQ was never an official branch of service of any legitimate government in Afghanistan. As far as we know, AQ was never a mercenary force, which would be meaningless and render any AQ fighter an illegal combatant anyway. There is no credible interpretation of the accepted rules of war to render any AQ fighter a legal combatant.

However, that precedent ended when Taliban were expelled and replaced by the current government regime (Karzai Government). The belligerency can be arguably gone and NATO and US forces stationed in Afghanistan is of good will of the Karzai government. That would instantly relegate the AQ operator status into unlawful combatant, as the war enter the insurrection stage.

The premier now would change to whether or not the clause of war for the American has been gone, as the Afghanistan government has been changed hand, what the situation after have transformed into a Civil War, where US have officially lose the belligerency since the US war ended in Afghanistan

The problem here is that Afghanistan, as much as we can generously call it a 'country' in the political sense instead of the generic geographical context of the word 'country', was never a belligerent against the US despite 9/11, because in order to be regarded as a legal belligerent, a country must be unified under one authority figure in the first place, and history showed the Taliban was never that figure. The strongest armed force in Afghanistan, perhaps, but as long as challengers can petition foreigners for moral and even physical support and give the Taliban a proverbial 'good fight', the Taliban will never be that non-disputable authority figure.

That does not mean the US cannot be a belligerent against the Taliban, and by extension, against Afghanistan. After all, AQ being transnational entity and still needs a haven in order to recruit and train its fighters, and when the Taliban made portions of Afghanistan available for that purpose, Afghanistan became a legitimate target for US belligerency under...

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907

Laws of War :

Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907

If AQ have a grievance against the US, the Taliban should not have injected themselves and Afghanistan into the mix. But by allowing AQ to use Afghanistan as a base from which ultimately 9/11 came to be, the Taliban stripped Afghanistan of any moral protection befitting a neutral state.

If I have to submit my own opinion, I would argue that AQ has no longer maintain their legal combatant status, and when you put in a US national fighting a war on the other side against the American to which American was no longer an official part of, this matter would instantly become an act of treason, which would relegate into Law Enforcement Affair.

Sorry...But I strongly disagree.

Never mind Afghanistan or Pakistan for now. Transnational law enforcement works only when there are sympathies among countries, as in those with a unified and strong singular authority figures who can speak for their peoples, for a set of laws and their associated crimes. The FBI and Interpol are useless in lawless countries like Sudan or Yemen where authority figures are monthly, if not weekly, fickle in their sympathies for the laws of their own lands, let alone laws agreed upon and shared by civilized societies.

It looks like you either did not know or forgot that our WTC Towers were twice victims of AQ: The 1993 underground garage truck bomb and finally Sept 11, 2001 where the towers finally came down.

AQ was not unknown to US before 9/11. AQ escalated the sophistication of attack in those 8 yrs. Prior to 9/11, we petitioned the Taliban in ways befitting one government to a peer for the Taliban to rid Afghanistan of AQ and Osama bin Laden. Then when 9/11 came, the US have every right to take the proverbial gloves off and treat AQ as a military force, albeit an illegal one that uses guerrilla warfare tactics.

But in the end, I am not a judge, this is merely my opinion

Do put yourself as a judge. By your opinions, you have and should have no fear doing it. You presented your opinions/arguments in a rational manner, much more than I can say for most of the uneducated and ignorant trolls here. Facts are meats and opinions are the seasonings that make the (intellectual) meals enjoyable.

 

[Dubious]

Preaching is easy, anyone can do whatever they like to preach. But governments are answerable to their own citizens, first and foremost.

There important thing here is the legal process and accountability to its own citizenry.

Dude! Govt is made of people and people are people! You screw up you are answerable to anyone who can drag your *** into court!

As for govt answerable to their citizens? When did that happen? Soo many rallies took place to not go for war with Iraq, did govt listen to citizens? Nope...

Soo many again happened for many other things...

Here I am guessing they are just playing with emotion!

 

[VCheng]

Dude! Govt is made of people and people are people! You screw up you are answerable to anyone who can drag your *** into court!

As for govt answerable to their citizens? When did that happen? Soo many rallies took place to not go for war with Iraq, did govt listen to citizens? Nope...

Soo many again happened for many other things...

Here I am guessing they are just playing with emotion!

There is a dignified, due and defined process for that redress that does not rely only on street rallies.

 

[Dubious]

There is a dignified, due and defined process for that redress that does not rely only on street rallies.

So its not democracy nor freedom of speech that plays any role...those are just banners like the American dream?

 

[VCheng]

So its not democracy nor freedom of speech that plays any role...those are just banners like the American dream?

People are free to speak their minds, and then follow the laws that govern a democracy to achieve their desired results. By and large, the system works very well, as the results show.

 

[Dubious]

People are free to speak their minds, and then follow the laws that govern a democracy to achieve their desired results. By and large, the system works very well, as the results show.

The results show the system is corrupt and being abused!

 

[VCheng]

The results show the system is corrupt and being abused!

That is for the US citizens to decide, right?

 

[Dubious]

That is for the US citizens to decide, right?

I am talking based on the articles...where corruption is spewing up like held back vomit!

Abusing of the system is also being shown in articles...