If CIA guys engage in combat as ununiformed civilians, I'm curious why they wouldn't be considered illegal combatants. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Anybody got an idea?
The CIA guys don’t sound like they are on the field of battle. So, as long as the drones have USA markings, what’s the problem?
The CIA answers to a definable chain of command therefore they are complying with the Laws of Warfare.
End of story.
In addition to that, the use of civilian contractors in roles that meet any objective definition of "combat" operations has also raised some concern among folks who understand the risks of applying this label to detainees captured by the U.S. military.
Since Obama is CiC, doesn’t this make him a War Criminal? When his term expires, shouldn’t he be turned ver to The Hague to face charges?
Sounds like sedition and plotting against the government to me.
Another self righteous secularist demanding we follow the rules of war while our enemies try to destroy the very country that makes those rules.
Because they’re flying armed and marked aircraft?
Been there done that. This is NOTHING new and is just hash over re-hash. Have you ever heard of Air America? The real one not the liberal spew radio station? Try Vietnam, try South America, try anywhere in the world combat is ongoing.
No attempt to disguise the drone so that it could “mix” into a population of civilian drones was made./s
The intent of the unlawful combatant rules of uniform was so that combatants would clearly be differentiated from noncombatants - thus cutting down on noncombatant deaths.
There is no attempt to disguise the drone as a nonmilitary drone.
The analogy is weak sauce at best, for either the goose or the gander.
You can’t have US Armed Forces regularly killing terrorists inside Pakistan. But the CIA is another thing.
We’ve been making this argument in JAG circles for years. I frankly have a hard time seeing how they’re not unlawful, or in violation of the “no assassinations” EO. But hey, that’s just me...
Colonel, USAFR
The DUmmies, Code Pink, etc., are all big on this too.
Besides they are not trying to hide their status. What would declaring them as "unlawful combatants" accomplish?
In RVN, for Road Runners, we wore black jammies (of course, 6'4” blue eyes, blond hair created a problem within 50 meters, but what the hell?!?!))
For insignia issues, a a US flag and the words “# 1 G.I. Property of Uncle F**king Sam” embroidered in dark OD thread on all clothing.
WaPo and Gary Solis, quite a combo of the blame America first crowd.
If CIA guys engage in combat as ununiformed civilians, I’m curious why they wouldn’t be considered illegal combatants.
This WashingMachine Poster has the deleterious disease too! Give him ObummerCaries!
My ancestors at Bunker Hill, Saratoga II and other battles wore no uniforms- they were just farmers with their varmint-poppin` muskets. Only one who had a uniform was Prescott. They were bloodied patriots.
"In August 1775, the King declared Americans in arms against royal authority to be traitors to the Crown. The British government at first started treating captured rebel combatants as COMMON CRIMINALS... Eventually they were technically accorded the rights of belligerents in 1782, by act of Parliament, when they were officially recognized as prisoners of war rather than traitors. At the end of the war, both sides released their surviving prisoners" [not in the MIDDLE of a War!]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
I was unaware that we stamped each and every bullet fired as US Military ordnance.
Are you under the impression that al queda, the taliban and the rest of the muzzie cutthroats wear uniforms, or are legal combatants?
Holder and 0bamao want to treat them as if they are, but under the Geneva Convention, they do not qualify. The best course of action for the muzzies:
KILL 'EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!
Dasimplesolution.
A win for the Pentagon in the Turf War.
All Drone Ops to be run by soldiers.
End of stupid controversy.