Blowback of the Predators

[The Northerner]

Lost in debate over whether the Obama administration had the right to carry out the extra-legal execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Yemini cleric and al-Qaeda member, is who pulled the trigger? It is not a minor question, and it lies at the heart of the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the 1977 additions to the ‘49 agreement: civilians cannot engage in war.

In the main, laws of war focus on the protection of civilians. For instance, Article 48, the “Basic Rule” of Part IV of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, states, “In order to ensure respect for and protection of civilian populations and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilian populations and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”

What follows in the 1977 Conventions are nine articles specifying what the general rule means, ranging from prohibitions against attacking power plants and water sources and spreading “terror among civilian populations” to destroying the “natural environment.” There are many civilian-related sections in other parts of the Conventions, but the 10 articles that make up Chapter I, Section I, Part IV on “Civilian Population” are the clearest guidelines about what is allowed when civilians are caught up in war.

The Conventions were mainly a response to the horrors of World War II, where civilian deaths were more than twice those on the military side. Of the approximate 80 million people who died in WW II, 55 million of them were civilians. In comparison, out of some 17 million who died in World War I, seven million were civilians.

Read more: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/05/blowback-of-the-predators/

[Speck Tater]

1. Acroding to that a country with no army and no military targets would be immune to war. nt

[Xithras]

4. Legally, yes.

If a country maintains no military and has no military targets, then any military action against them would be a war crime and the leaders of the attacking country would be subject to Hague prosecution.

Of course, if you were a resident of a nation with no formal military, how much faith would you place in the UN to bail you out if you were invaded?

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[gratuitous]

3. Oh please!

Treaties and the Constitution are soooo pre-9/11! Besides, the president swears an oath to protect the American people, not to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And everyone agrees that Anwar al-Awlaki was a very, very bad person, even if we can't exactly specify what he did. He "inspired" other people to do very bad things. And just . . . shut up, already. Or maybe we'll decide that you're a very, very bad person.

[sad sally]

5. The fact that President Obama has ordered and used unmanned terminators

to engage in non-declared battles with unnamed enemies without any debate - either in the US or with other nations - completely defies and changes the war conventions. It destroys our reputations as morally upright people.

These actions have moral consequences. The administration’s enthusiastic use of lethal drones may very well escalate a global arms race that comes back to haunt Americans - how can we expect other countries to adhere to the rule of law when we don't?

[The Northerner]

6. +100 I couldn't agree more