[ichabod1]

You mean the Marines could walk into the state department, come up behind a secret member of the muslim brotherhood working at one of the desks, stick his service Beretta behind his ear and pull the trigger, and it would be perfectly legal?

[xone]

The 2015 DoD Law of War Manual, a document only a lawyer could love, states: Unprivileged belligerents include lawful combatants who have forfeited the privileges of combatant status by engaging in spying or sabotage, and private persons who have forfeited one or more of the protections of civilian status by engaging in hostilities.

One of the 'protections of civilian status' is they can't be killed intentionally. Collateral damage: Collateral damage is any death, injury, or other damage inflicted that is an unintended result of military operations.

Obviously civilians are killed in war in a non-criminal way 'unintentionally' or a criminal one 'intentionally'. Civilians who forfeit the protections afforded civilian status by engaging in hostilities can be killed intentionally.

In your example, a 'secret' MB member would still have civilian status until his actions exposed him as participating in hostilities. So no, you couldn't do that in that example. Put the still 'secret' MB member in another venue where he has exposed himself as engaging in hostilities and yes he could and probably would be killed even though ostensibly a civilian, just like an identifiable enemy soldier would be.

For the purposes of further, if the US 'knows' via intel sources that a foreign national not legally recognizable as a 'combatant' (uniform, chain if command, state sponsorship) is engaged in hostilities against the US, IMO there is no legal bar from killing him by lawful means. Like Osama BL, these folks have placed themselves 'outside' of Geneva Conventions protections, and while there are some nations that would object, they are the same ones that seek to prevent the US (and other capable countries) from exercising that ability. IOW asymetrical war for me not thee.

[xone]

FYI, the page 'Meaning of Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) - The Balance Careers; has been heavily altered ie. dumbed down since it was referenced in the mighty lexicon of Swordmaker. The current page is relatively useless except as a bridge to other docs and pubs. Kinda pisses me off, because in its original form it was a easy to understand explanation of the Law of Armed Conflict.

In post 371 there is a link to a challenge to a section of the NDAA of 2011, signed by the Bummer, relating to the use of military tribunals for USCs. 0 claimed he would never use that section, probably because he put it there for Hitlery. But she lost, it is still in force. Was suspended by a US District court, the suspension overturned by the 2nd Us Court of Appeals (then liberal) SCOTUS declined to hear it. Still operative AFAIK, a tangled web for sure.