Here’s the basis for the Law of Armed Conflict:
The LOAC arises from a desire among civilized nations to prevent unnecessary suffering and destruction while not impeding the effective waging of war. A part of public international law, LOAC regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. It also aims to protect civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked. LOAC applies to international armed conflicts and in the conduct of military operations and related activities in armed conflict, however such conflicts are characterized.
Here’s what 21st Century legal scholars are opining about Other Government Agency employment of Predator and Reaper missile strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan:
Mary Ellen O’Connell, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, was much more blunt in her statement. “Combat drones are battlefield weapons,” she told the panel. “They fire missiles or drop bombs capable of inflicting very serious damage. Drones are not lawful for use outside combat zones. Outside such zones, police are the proper law enforcement agents, and police are generally required to warn before using lethal force.”
“Restricting drones to the battlefield is the most important single rule governing their use, O’Connell continued. “Yet, the United States is failing to follow it more often than not.”
Someone needs to do some catching up on current events.
Our adversaries are not civilized nations, and they acknowledge no battle fields. It’s time to update old thinking in light of the new realities.
Prof. O’Connell is projecting, among other things, the way the campus police at Notre Dame behave. Presumably.
Personally, given the murderous events on the Virginia Tech campus, I’d argue even that behavior isn’t always appropriate or, if saving lives is a priority for police, strictly lawful.
For a nation-state at war with transnational non-state actors seeking to strike them in lawless areas like Pakistan’s North West Frontier, the civilian police model is wildly inappropriate.
But are they arguing against the use of the drones in Pakistan or the CIA use of the drones (presumably anywhere)?
Heck,
I’d be happy if these folks just realized that we are at war. We didn’t start this stuff, and our enemies, as Lex points out, view the entire world as the battlefield. They’ve been at this game for the better part of 14 centuries now, and it’s time folks woke up to the fact that this ISN’T going to end until one side or the other is beaten to insignificance.
Respects,
“Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.” — Gunnery Sgt. Tom Highway, /86
“Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” — George W. Bush, 9/20/01
This is good- we got something here that works. A little of both of the above…
When will people like Mary Ellen O’Connell realize that we’re really not the bad guys? I just don’t get that ilk.
Respectfully, Lex, there’s nothing “new” here. The principle is as older Sun tzu. There has never been a battlefield distinction in any case I’m aware of. Battles can consist of individuals (one pilot meets another enemy pilot and they engage each other in the sky), single entities (a sub meets an enemy sea vessel) or whole brigades. When Pettigrew’s North Carolinians went looking for shoes and ran into Buford’s cavalry unit, Gettysburg was not a battlefield. Then both forces immediately attacked each other and a battlefield was created. In Operation Torch, the Allies violated the nominal ‘neutrality’ of Vichy France to land troops in Algeria and a battlefield was created, and so on.
The only issue I can see would be violation of neutrality, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here (nor in Yemen, apparently, since the latest I heard Yemeni forces were working with the US as well in the venture to target the newest US Al Qaeda member).
Sorry in the above quote I was referring to the targeted US member of Al qaeda in the second paragraph. Prematurely hit ‘submit’ before qualifying.
I suggest that Ms. O’Connell be allowed to live the life of a woman in Afghanistan or the tribal lands of Pakistan for a year under taliban rules === she can then pontificate with a bit more reality under her belt.
I think the legal process has not caught up to reality in several instances. Lets look at one thing in particular:
When does crime stop being crime and start being war?
Now think about the gang situations south of the border. These cartels are non-state actors seeking to undermine the legitimate authority of several governments (including us) by use of narco terrorism. They practice assassination, terror, etc. and all the practices of a belligerent state in a war with the US and its allies. Yet they are not treated as enemy combatants. Why not? They are certainly attempting to overthrow or coerce legitimate governments by use of force and other means. Yet they are treated as common criminals which they certainly are not.
I guess my question is at what point to we say fuck it, act like we are at war with these dipshits, and do what is necessary?
I do not think that the law has covered the gap between crime and war very well. Are there states of conflict between these two markers? What about the gang situation the US? Could we not argue that some of these ass wipes are in fact engaged in war with legitimate government here?
I really wish Congress would consider these issues and provide guidelines as to what constitutes legitimate responses. But I guess they too busy blow jobbing each other as to how wonderful they are instead of doing the peoples business……..or protecting the people and their Constitution.
On the other hand, when does war lessen itself to the level of crime? It could be argued that non-state actors such as are causing trouble right now have no legitimacy under the LOAC, are merely bandits, and as such their disposal is a matter for whatever sovereign nation happens to be unfortunate enough to be harbouring them, or for whatever other nations they might have attacked.
If Pakistan feels that the best solution for bandits and warlords is bombing them, well, it’s their country.
I’m getting incredibly, stunningly tired of busybody academics like Prof. O’Connell, who have never held a profit-making job, never met a payroll, never run a city, never run a state, telling those of us out here in the real world how we should earn our livings and what weapons our seasoned warriors are allowed to use. Or not.
Put a sock in it, woman.
Marianne
Concur Marianne..and I have starting sending back empty envelopes to these institutions that ask for my support dollars..with an explanation why I no longer support them..It has to start somewhere..
George Wallace was right, Marianne. The “pointy-headed” ones “can’t even park their bikes straight” let alone opine about reality.
Wow! “…never held a profit-making job, never met a payroll, never run a city, never run a state…” What a bunch of assumptions! If you’d looked into it a bit more, you would have found that Professor O’Connell served in the US Department of Defense (with the pay and entitlements of a one-star general), is a former Army wife, is married to a combat veteran, and serves as an advisor to the ROTC program at Notre Dame. She has (at last count) seven former research assistants serving as JAGs in various branches of the US military. Professor O’Connell also practiced law with Convington & Burling for a number of years (which certainly counts as a “profit-making job”).
Now, let’s look at YOUR qualifications. A Google search doesn’t seem to produce anything that shows that you are qualified to have an opinion on the subject of the use of drones, the definition of “battlefield,” anything related to scholarship on the Geneva Conventions,have any previous military service, or, well, anything related to the subject. Am I missing something? Are you perhaps using an alias to protect your real identity as an expert on the law of war? Or are simply an inexperienced, non-expert who has decided that she knows more about the subject than someone who has researched, taught, written, and lived the subject? And, by the way, which particular cities and states have you run?
Just asking….
Wallace was being charitable too.