News US Predator Drone Attacks: Illegal Under International Law?

[Proton Soup]

It would accomplish very little toward the war effort and doesn't support their goals anyway.

what do you think their goals are ?

 

[russ_watters]

...logically Al Qaeda is not a military force, but exactly what we call it, a terrorist organization. That said, we agree on the bottom line, so I can live with a few unsplit hairs.

I'm ok with it as well, but I'm still curious as to what logic would disqualify Al Qaeda from being considered a military force...

 

[russ_watters]

what do you think their goals are ?

There is no "what do I think". Bin Laden has been quite fairly explicit about his purpose. In short, it is to kill Americans because we aren't Muslims. In long, rambling diatribe:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Note: though Bin Laden's main complaint is that we attack Islam, his principal demand is that we convert to Islam. That, combined with the fact that he doesn't go after our military, but after our civilians paints a clear picture, that this isn't primarily about our actions, it is about our religion.

Hence, there is no particular reason to go after a military target instead of a civilian one. If given the luxury of attacking several simultaneously (ie, 9/11), sure, might as well. Otherwise, whichever kills the most Americans is the attack of choice. If one were to carry out the attacks for the purpose of hitting the government hard, the Capital Building and White House are the most important targets and only one was on the target list.

 

[Proton Soup]

There is no "what do I think". Bin Laden has been quite fairly explicit about his purpose. In short, it is to kill Americans because we aren't Muslims. In long, rambling diatribe:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

well, he gave a lot of pretty specific complaints. and though there was a lot of "Repent and come to Mohammad" in there, the promise was not to kill us "because we aren't Muslims", but to fight us because of the positions he says we have taken against his causes.

Note: though Bin Laden's main complaint is that we attack Islam, his principal demand is that we convert to Islam. That, combined with the fact that he doesn't go after our military, but after our civilians paints a clear picture, that this isn't primarily about our actions, it is about our religion.

i think you are placing too much emphasis on that demand. i think in his eyes, it's a sort of olive branch that there could be peace between us if we stopped our attacks. none of his complaints were that we were not Muslim.

as for civilians, he simply gave his justification for attacking civilians: that more or less, we are a democracy and as such responsible for the actions of our government. furthermore, he goes on to include the military as part of the american people, which makes civilian and military targets equally legitimate in his eyes.

Hence, there is no particular reason to go after a military target instead of a civilian one. If given the luxury of attacking several simultaneously (ie, 9/11), sure, might as well. Otherwise, whichever kills the most Americans is the attack of choice. If one were to carry out the attacks for the purpose of hitting the government hard, the Capital Building and White House are the most important targets and only one was on the target list.

no, he include both military and civilian.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

the answer to "(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you? " also lays out what i would consider to be plenty of military objectives they have.

 

[BobG]

I think you'd be surprised at how thrilled Bin Laden would be to see us converted at the edge of a sword. He wants a Muslim world, with infidels dead, or converted, which has been standard for a long time. Attacks from Al Qaeda proper have been what?

-Embassies
-USS Cole
-WTC (Financial)
-Pentagon
-Soldiers and Civilians in places he deems to be no place for us

That's twisted to be sure, but it reflects definite goals and priorities. Now, they may be nested, in that symbolism is mixed with economic impact, but fundamentally he sees himself and his organization to be at war with a state, and that civilians are complicit and fair game. That is, of course, insane, but it is still a clearly stated series of objectives, and given their lack of personal and material, they can't really afford to go for too many low-value targets.

Actually, the only ones even questionable is the WTC and attacks on embassies and diplomats.

And I think issues about the WTC would be about degree when compared to Allied bombing of Axis factories and oil refineries during World War II. Allied targets had a direct link to the Axis war effort, while I think the financial markets have a very indirect link with US military power - too indirect to be a legitimate target*. It's very definitely a statement that they're not at war with a US government that does things they disagree with - they're waging war against every man, woman, and child in America.

Attacking embassies and diplomats is a little like killing people waving a white flag of truce. It's pretty much a statement that there will be no solution except total annihilation of one of the combatants, since you're eliminating the only means of negotiating an end to the confrontation.

I don't think their method is insane, but it certainly invites a like response of annihilating them as soon as possible to minimize the damage they cause.

*If you were judge World War II Allied bombing campaigns by today's standards, you could say the same thing about them. It's tough to wage a successful bombing campaign if you only have limited intel capability. You need to know the size of reserve stockpiles and you have to be able to assess the damage of bombing missions. Otherwise, you bomb certain types of factories for months and see if the results show up on the battlefield. If it doesn't, then you try bombing a different type of target and see if those results show up on the battlefield. You never really know if bombing a certain type of target was a waste of time or you gave up just when results were about to show up.

 

[russ_watters]

i think you are placing too much emphasis on that demand. i think in his eyes, it's a sort of olive branch that there could be peace between us if we stopped our attacks. none of his complaints were that we were not Muslim.

I don't think so - I think those are excuses and not reasons. There are logical contradictions that make me dismiss them and focus on the purely religious component Ie:

as for civilians, he simply gave his justification for attacking civilians: that more or less, we are a democracy and as such responsible for the actions of our government. furthermore, he goes on to include the military as part of the american people, which makes civilian and military targets equally legitimate in his eyes.

Yes, but given that his complaint #1 is "you attacked us in Palestine", that is at least two degrees of separation to get to our civilians. We don't have any troops in Palestine, the Isralis do, so the target list in order of importance should be:
1. Israeli troops.
1a. Israeli civilians.
2. American government (not miitary)
3. American civilians.

If Palestine is his real concern, why put so much of his effort toward us?

Next, in other writings he specifically mentioned our presence in the holy land of Saudia Arabia but there are several problems with that:
1. He started working on the first WTC attack before the 1st gulf war - it was his first major operation against the US.
2. The Saudis practically begged us to come rescue them.
3. We left after the job was finished.

 

[russ_watters]

And I think issues about the WTC would be about degree when compared to Allied bombing of Axis factories and oil refineries during World War II.

No, the issue is that following WWII, the purposeful attacking of civilans was outlawed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

And even if "total war" were still legal, Al Qaeda's operations against purely military targets in a battle theater are far too thin and recent for these other attacks to be a wider component of a total war. These scattered, isolated attacks are the war for Al Qaeda.

It's very definitely a statement that they're not at war with a US government that does things they disagree with - they're waging war against every man, woman, and child in America.

Agreed.

Attacking embassies and diplomats is a little like killing people waving a white flag of truce. It's pretty much a statement that there will be no solution except total annihilation of one of the combatants, since you're eliminating the only means of negotiating an end to the confrontation.

Agreed, at least in practice. Diplomats have protected status specifically because diplomats are how you work out a peaceful solution to a conflict. Now I wouldn't necessarily accept that he was intending to make that statement: it may have just been that these were easy targets. But at the very least, the idea that bombing diplomats could be counterproductive to a peace process didn't stop him.

I also wouldn't give him a pass on the Pentagon. Though technically a legitimate target as part of the military command structure, such an attack has little actual tactical or strategic value and if such a question even crossed his mind, I'm sure he knew that. Ie, if he's really interested in furthering his military cause, he should be going after command and control infrastructure in theater or perhaps a predator command center in the states.

*If you were judge World War II Allied bombing campaigns by today's standards, you could say the same thing about them.

We used to have occasional arguments about the morality of allied practices in WWII including the atom bomb and Dresden bombings but those stopped mostly because people who started the argument were surprised that no one argued against it! Yes, under today's rules and logic, such actions are illegal and immoral.

It's tough to wage a successful bombing campaign if you only have limited intel capability. You need to know the size of reserve stockpiles and you have to be able to assess the damage of bombing missions. Otherwise, you bomb certain types of factories for months and see if the results show up on the battlefield. If it doesn't, then you try bombing a different type of target and see if those results show up on the battlefield. You never really know if bombing a certain type of target was a waste of time or you gave up just when results were about to show up.

The cynic in me wonders if our morality has been allowed to evolve due to technological practicality rather than through a logic of its own, but that is a topic for a different day...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What's the difference between a CIA agent using a predator drone to kill an enemy leader and a terrorist attacking the white house with a suicide vest? Both are non-uniformed combatants fighting off the front line.

...

How do our charges against Al-Qaeda members as "unlawful combatants" hold up when we conduct the exact same type of warfare? From what I understand that's the biggest question mark

The Geneva convention is solely for the purpose of describing the required treatment of prisoners of war by the signatories. Nothing in the Geneva convention has anything to do with the legality of actions by soldiers except with regard to the treatment of POWs. Whether or not anything done by any such prisoner is illegal is based on other treaties and the laws of the detaining power. "Unlawful Combatant" is not a crime, it is a legal classification which determines the manner in which the prisoner is to be treated under the geneva convention.

 

[russ_watters]

The Geneva convention is solely for the purpose of describing the required treatment of prisoners of war by the signatories. Nothing in the Geneva convention has anything to do with the legality of actions by soldiers except with regard to the treatment of POWs.

There are four Geneva conventions with the fourth being about the treatment of civilians in war:

In diplomacy, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty. The first three Geneva Conventions were revised and expanded in 1949, and the fourth was added at that time.

First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864
Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906
Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949
The whole set is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Convention".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Whether or not anything done by any such prisoner is illegal is based on other treaties and the laws of the detaining power.

The treaty being the Geneva conventions. However, if a country isn't a signatory, it doesn't necessarily protect them from prosecutioin for war crimes.

"Unlawful Combatant" is not a crime, it is a legal classification which determines the manner in which the prisoner is to be treated under the geneva convention.

Essentially yes.

Note, though that the Geneva Conventions are not the only laws of war.

 

[BobG]

The cynic in me wonders if our morality has been allowed to evolve due to technological practicality rather than through a logic of its own, but that is a topic for a different day...

I don't know why it would take a cynic to notice that. Human history has been a constant conflict between what people would like to do in an ideal world and what they have to accept doing in a real world.

Humans are as moral as they can be and still eke out a living for themselves and their loved ones.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The treaty being the Geneva conventions. However, if a country isn't a signatory, it doesn't necessarily protect them from prosecutioin for war crimes.

Nothing outlined in the GC defines war crimes or illegal actions on the part of the detained. It is merely classification for treatment by the detaining power. If organized persons enter combat without uniforms or flag it does not make them criminals it only means that they are not protected by the GC. Otherwise, as Office Shredder wonders, CIA clandestine ops would be criminals and the nations that they take action in or against would be within their rights to request that they be remanded to their custody as such.