The distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one...

It would be a difficult case to argue in an American court for the defense.
It may be even more difficult in an International one.

Joe(First, let's try Bush/Chaney)Nation

How does tortue enter into the question?.

You're delving into hysteria here.

Yeah, you do hysteria all the time,

and this is an example.

Joe did not mention torture, nor anyone being prosecuted for authorizing torture. If he comes back and specifically states that he's talking about torture, that will be a different kettle of fish.

Not sure what point you're trying to make Foof. Are you calling me a good or bad father? In any case my daughter has developed a healthy interest in politics.

Yes you do,

and yes it is.

One of your most common episodes of hsyteria is to call people freedom haters because they won't agree with you, or scorn what you write.

Just because you think Cheney and his lap dog Bush commited crimes in authorizing torture doesn't mean that's what Joe had in mind. You're getting hysterical again.

My opinion qua my immunity from domestic strife
(including kids) is objective fact.

No matter how bad things get,
I will never fall victim to patricide.





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My opinion qua my immunity from domestic strife
(including kids) is objective fact.

No matter how bad things get,
I will never fall victim to patricide.





David

Within the context of your value system.
I might not subscribe to all of your value system, in regards to one's existential value.

International law is very clear on our right to kill enemy fighters.

1. What is a “targeted killing”?

In recent years the phrase “targeted killing” has commonly been used to refer to a deliberate lethal attack by government forces against a specific individual not in custody under the color of law. It is not a technical legal term. Depending on the circumstances, a particular targeted killing may or may not be lawful under international law. For instance, a sniper shooting at an enemy general on the battlefield would normally be a lawful targeted killing. Targeted killings should be considered distinctly from the summary execution of anyone in custody, which is never lawful.

2. What international law is applicable to targeted killings?

The lawfulness of a targeted killing hinges in part on the applicable law, which is determined by the context in which it takes place. International humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is applicable during armed conflicts, whether between states or between a state and non-state armed groups. Hostilities between a state and an armed group are generally considered to be an armed conflict when violence reaches a significant threshold and the armed group has the capacity to abide by the laws of war. Rules of international humanitarian law are found in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its two Additional Protocols, the 1907 Hague Regulations, and the customary laws of war. Among other things, these rules regulate the conduct of hostilities, including the targeting of combatants, in all armed conflicts.

International human rights law is applicable at all times, but during armed conflict it may be superseded by the laws of war. International human rights law can be found in treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and authoritative standards such as the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Human rights law upholds the right to life and provides rules for law enforcement on when the use of lethal force is permissible. Outside of armed conflict, lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to prevent imminent harm to life, when arrest is not reasonably possible.

3. What are the laws of war on targeted killings?

The laws of war permit attacks only against military objectives, such as enemy fighters or weapons and ammunition. Civilians are immune from attack, except those individuals “directly participating in the hostilities.” While the phrase “directly participating in hostilities” has various interpretations, it is generally accepted to include not only persons currently engaged in fighting, but also individuals actively planning or directing future military operations. For a specific attack on a military objective to be lawful, it must discriminate between combatants and civilians, and the expected loss of civilian life or property cannot be disproportionate to the anticipated military gain of the attack. Therefore, not all attacks that cause civilian deaths violate the laws of war, only those that target civilians, are indiscriminate or cause disproportionate civilian loss.

Parties to a conflict have a duty to investigate serious violations of the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions state that “[t]he High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” Where there is credible evidence that an attack has violated the laws of war, the responsible party is obligated to investigate for possible war crimes and appropriately prosecute the perpetrators, or extradite them for prosecution elsewhere.

4. What is the international human rights law on targeted killings?

International human rights law permits the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict situations if it is strictly and directly necessary to save human life. In particular, the use of lethal force is lawful if the targeted individual presents an imminent threat to life and less extreme means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, are insufficient to address that threat. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides that the “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” This standard permits using firearms only in self-defense or defense of others “against the imminent threat of death or serious injury” or “to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life” and “only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives.” Under this standard, individuals cannot be targeted for lethal attack merely because of past unlawful behavior, but only for imminent or other grave threats to life when arrest is not a reasonable possibility.

Where there is evidence that a targeted killing might have violated international human rights standards, a state has an obligation to investigate. For instance, the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions state that “[t]here shall be thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, including cases where complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death.”.....

Oralloy wrote:

International law is very clear on our right to kill enemy fighters.

No.
"Enemy fighters" & "targeted killings" (of individuals by predator drones) are 2 very different things.

2. What international law is applicable to targeted killings?

The lawfulness of a targeted killing hinges in part on the applicable law, which is determined by the context in which it takes place. International humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is applicable during armed conflicts, whether between states or between a state and non-state armed groups. Hostilities between a state and an armed group are generally considered to be an armed conflict when violence reaches a significant threshold and the armed group has the capacity to abide by the laws of war.

3. What are the laws of war on targeted killings?

The laws of war permit attacks only against military objectives, such as enemy fighters or weapons and ammunition. Civilians are immune from attack, except those individuals “directly participating in the hostilities.” While the phrase “directly participating in hostilities” has various interpretations, it is generally accepted to include not only persons currently engaged in fighting, but also individuals actively planning or directing future military operations.

For a specific attack on a military objective to be lawful, it must discriminate between combatants and civilians, and the expected loss of civilian life or property cannot be disproportionate to the anticipated military gain of the attack. Therefore, not all attacks that cause civilian deaths violate the laws of war, only those that target civilians, are indiscriminate or cause disproportionate civilian loss.

The targets of drone airstrikes are planning and directing further military operations against us.

Oralloy wrote:

The targets of drone airstrikes are planning and directing further military operations against us.

That is an administrative decision. Untested. We have to take somebody's word for it. Stalin used it all the time.

I hope you don't intend to justify Stalin's murders by pretending that they are similar to the US killing terrorists.