Karoline Leavitt's Statement on the Drug Boat Attack Should Close the Issue, but It Won't

War is hell.

What issue?

“War is hell.”
___________________________________________________________

No doubt, but war requires the approval of Congress.

when you have attackers literally storming the beaches to continue killing American citizens (73,000+ so far this year)...

you don’t look to congress in order to react.

it’s literally why the position of President was created.

to react at a moments notice. to be the commander in chief in times of crisis.

killing 73,000+ Americans is a crisis.

RE: What issue?

Well, to make it short here is the issue — The controversy is that ordering a second strike on survivors of the drug boat could violate the laws of war, specifically the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit attacking individuals who are hors de combat (out of the fight). Survivors clinging to wreckage are no longer an active threat, so deliberately targeting them raises allegations of a war crime.

The Convention requires that Survivors must be treated humanely without adverse distinction (race, religion, political opinion, etc.). The should be treated as POW instead of being killed.

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

But that is the issue in a nutshell.

Well I guess if it’s not a war one can’t commit a war crime. This story is silly. When’s the December vote to destroy the country from Congress THIS year?.

Being bombed with with a lethal strike is much more humane that being eaten alive by sharks.

Indeed.

Turn them all into “good” drug dealers.

Don’t be a Drug Mule

Problem Solved

Hey, it’s Google, so...no guarantees 😁😁😁

No seas una mula de drogas

Problema resuelto

My issue is, was it worth a very expensive hell fire missile, just to waste two narcos?

Does the hors de combat requirement apply to all categories of fighters or just to lawful combatants?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists and spies. They do not wear a uniform. They do not adhere to the Rules of War. They are not regular enemy combatants. They literally avoid becoming regular enemy combatants, to take advantage of asymmetrical warfare. The price of choosing that route is losing all of the protections of the Geneva Convention. They chose their position. They must deal with the consequences.

Ping.

The Conventions don't apply to people who are not lawful combatants, like these drug runners.

But, there are still ordinary U.S. laws and the UCMJ that regulate conduct even in the absence of the Conventions. For example, even though an unlawful combatant female is not protected by the Conventions, U.S. military personnel could still be prosecuted for raping her because rape is a crime.

So is murder. I'd imagine the argument would go something like "2 people clinging to boat wreckage are no longer a valid target, and therefore killing them is murder, Geneva Convention or no."

Before anyone scoffs at that, that's basically how U.S. military members who committed "war crimes" during the War on Terror against people who were unlawful combatants were prosecuted -- violations of the UCMJ.

But the obvious question the Red State article raises is...exactly what happened that prompted the second shot? If the boat was still operational/not sunk, then it would still be a valid target.

Apparently, some members of Congress want the audio/video of the attack and related communications to see for themselves.

RE: much more humane that being eaten alive by sharks.

Did you know sharks never attack lawyers? 🦈🦈🦈🦈

Professional courtesy.

Congress has already approved kinetic force in the War on Terror - to be determined specifically and exclusively by the President, although Judge Denise Lind has ruled in the court-martial of Tery Lakin that the legality of military orders has nothing to do with whether military combat is authorized by the President or the Congress.

It sounds like the second hit was because the first didn’t sink the vessel. The target was the boat, not the people.

Karoline Leavitt's Statement on the Drug Boat Attack Should Close the Issue, but It Won't

For anybody at all knowledgeable of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) or International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Levitt's statement should induce projectile vomiting rather than settle anything. It is a bogus argument based on bullcrap.

There is no such thing as making or declaring war against a non-state actor. It is legally impossible. Non-state terrorists cannot be parties to a war. They cannot be considered combatants and they cannot qualify to become prisoners of war upon capture. They are civilian criminals.

Neither President Trump, nor anyone else in the world, has the authority to declare war against a non-state actor.

LOAC is the Law of Armed Conflict, which has replaced the Laws of War.

Gary D. Solis, United States Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 157.

Gary D. Solis is a retired Professor of Law of the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he headed the law of war program.

Nonstate Actors and Armed Opposition Groups Are Bound by LOAC/IHL.
What LOAC applies when nonstate actors like al Qaeda, not controlled by any state, are the opposing "armed force" in an armed conflict? "[T]he application of the laws of war in counter terrorist operations has always been particularly problematical."
Terrorist groups are most often criminal organizations, a variety of armed opposition group. (Until they defeat the government forces and become the gvernment.) They are not states and therefore may not be parties to the Geneva Convention, the Additional Protocols, or any multinational treaty. Terrorist attacks, if the terrorists have a sufficient organization and if the attacks are sufficiently violent and protracted, may be instances of non-international common Article 3 conflicts. If not sufficiently organized, and if the attacks are not lengthy in nature, they are simply criminal events.
Terrorist attacks, no matter how organized the group, violent or protracted the fighting, cannot be considered an international armed conflict for the same reason that terrorist groups cannot be considered parties to the Conventions. Terrorist attacks are conducted by non-states. More than a half century ago, Professor Oppenheim expressed the traditional law of war view: "To be war, the contention must be between states. When engaged in armed combat, terrorists and other armed opposition group members in a common Article 3 conflict enjoy no combatant's privilege, and upon capture they may be prosecuted for their illegal combatant-like acts prior to capture.

Everyone involved in a conflict is either a combatant or a civilian, the only two classifications. Combatants are members of the uniformed armed services of a nation state, wear a distinguishing insignia, carry their arms openly, etc. By comparison, a civilian is negatively defined as one who does not meet all the defining criteria of a combatant.

Terrorists who are not members of the uniformed armed services of a nation state cannot be lawful combatants, they are civilians. When the Taliban became the official government of Afghanistan, its members became combatants and, upon capture, they became prisoners of war. When the Taliban was not the official government, its members doing combat-like actions were civilians and their acts were criminal.

An enemy combatant (or any combatant) only exists in international armed conflict, i.e., an armed conflict between the armed forces of two or more recognized nations.

Quotes from Noam Lubbell, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors, Oxford University Press, 2010, paperback 2011.

Noam Lubell is Lecturer, Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, National University of Ireland, Galway.

1.1 Combatants
The definition of an individual as a combatant is crucial to two separate stages of the conflict—it affects the decision of whether and how an individual can be targeted during the fighting and it determines the treatment to which s/he is entitled upon capture, especially with relation to the determination of prisoner of war status. This current work is concerned with the use of force in operations against non-state actors and, therefore, the discussion around combatants is limited here to those aspects of it affecting that first stage.
The term combatant is used to describe those who are recognized by the law as having the right to take part in the fighting and who will be entitled to prisoner of war status if captured. The flip-side to being recognized as a combatant who has the right to take part in the fighting is being a legitimate target who can be attacked at any time during the hostilities, provided s/he is not hors de combat (captured, shipwrecked, sick or wounded). The definitions of combatants and prisoners of war appear only in the rules of international armed conflict. As for non-international armed conflict, states are naturally reluctant to include in international law any recognition of individuals lawfully fighting against the state, and granted preferential treatment if captured, and it was feared that entitling rebels to prisoner of war status would prevent states from prosecuting them for taking up arms." This does not necessarily mean, however, that all individuals in a non-international armed conflict are protected civilians and there are debates over the question of how to categorize members of armed groups—as something akin to combatants (minus immunity from prosecution) or as civilians who lose protection while taking part in hostilities.
In the context of international armed conflicts, members of non-state groups fit into the definition of combatant if they are part of a militia or organization belonging to a party to the conflict but unless this is a conflict under Article 1.4 of Protocol 1, belonging to a party to the conflict means belonging to a state, thereby not being non-state actors. In any case, they would need to have a command structure, a fixed distinctive sign, be carrying arms openly and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws of war.
[...]

- - - - -

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) defines who is a combatant. A civilian is anyone who is not a combatant. Such a civilian, should he engage in acts of war, did not enjoy any combatant privilege, his acts are merely crimes. Should he shoot at someone and miss, it could be attempted murder. Should he kill somebody, it could be murder.

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-ihl-210705.htm

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

2. Who is a combatant?
International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.
[...]
4. Who is entitled to "prisoner of war" status? What is the consequence of failure to qualify for prisoner of war status?
a. In international armed conflict
As previously mentioned, in international armed conflict, members of the armed forces of the States involved (and associated militias) are lawful combatants. It should be borne in mind that in this type of conflict, there are lawful combatants on two (or more) sides: the armed forces of one State fighting the armed forces of another State.
The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a " competent tribunal " in case of doubt are mandatory.
Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfill the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.
This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.
Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.
Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If narco-terrorists were actually classified as lawful combatants, then upon capture they could not be prosecuted for their combatant acts, but would become prisoners of war. If not classified as lawful combatants, they would fall under the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention and their combatant-like acts would be criminal acts.

As professor Lubbell pointed out, "The flip-side to being recognized as a combatant who has the right to take part in the fighting is being a legitimate target who can be attacked at any time during the hostilities, provided s/he is not hors de combat (captured, shipwrecked, sick or wounded)." Targeting people hanging on to a wrecked boat, hors de combat, is a crime.