Yes, By that measure alone he was not a Lawful combatant. However, The fact is, he does qualify as an unlawful combatant - Also known as an unprivileged combatant - as not only has he shown himself previously to be willing to break the laws of war, and also to perform actions which qualify him as an unlawful combatant - by his own words, in fact - and IIRC, he also has command responsibility for his forces, and as they do not carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war, also do not qualify for Lawful combatant status.
Essentially, here's your rule of thumb - If they're taking a direct part in the hostilities, you're good to go, as long as you are following the rules of war. If they are not - By role, or by other means such as illness, wounds, or being detained or disabled - then they are considered non-combatants, and harming them is strictly forbidden unless under very specific circumstances.
There are already rules set by the Geneva Conventions concerning attacking military medical facilities, prisoners of war, etc. That doesn't apply in this case. Otherwise, any military officer of a country/force/etc. you are currently engaged in hostilities with is a legitimate target that can be taken out using whatever is allowed by the rules of war. Going back to WW2, for example, do you think that Rooselvelt, Churchill, Hitler, Hirohito (or whoever the Japanese supreme commander was as Hirohito was mostly a symbolic leader) and Mussolini were not targeted by the various sides fighting in that conflict? Roosevelt may have been spared because of Washington's distance from the main battle fronts, but at the very least Churchill and Hitler spent much of the war in underground bunkers because they were legitimate targets.
They're also saying he shot at the SEALs during the raid, so even if his status as a combatant was in question that question was answered at that moment. Also, by US law, the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is "any the President says is an unlawful enemy combatant".
There are already rules set by the Geneva Conventions concerning attacking military medical facilities, prisoners of war, etc. That doesn't apply in this case. Otherwise, any military officer of a country/force/etc. you are currently engaged in hostilities with is a legitimate target that can be taken out using whatever is allowed by the rules of war. Going back to WW2, for example, do you think that Rooselvelt, Churchill, Hitler, Hirohito (or whoever the Japanese supreme commander was as Hirohito was mostly a symbolic leader) and Mussolini were not targeted by the various sides fighting in that conflict? Roosevelt may have been spared because of Washington's distance from the main battle fronts, but at the very least Churchill and Hitler spent much of the war in underground bunkers because they were legitimate targets.
No, they were absolutely targeted by their enemies, I have no illusions about that.
However, I also have no illusions that we live in 1939 to 1945 anymore. Which does make a difference, since WW2 was considered a "Total War" - which is now Outlawed by the fourth Geneva convention, Which was adopted in 1949. And that means that Obama, Despite being commander in chief, is not considered a member of the nation's armed forces or a valid target - as a side note, IIRC, America has a very strong tradition of having an explicitly Civilian controlled military but anyway - under the law of war, Obama and many other heads of state are civilians, and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva convention afforded as such.
under the law of war, Obama and many other heads of state are civilians, and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva convention afforded as such.
They're also saying he shot at the SEALs during the raid, so even if his status as a combatant was in question that question was answered at that moment. Also, by US law, the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is "any the President says is an unlawful enemy combatant".
I'm no fan of the whole "unlawful enemy combatant" bullcrap. However, I think bin Laden is still a legitimate target under the general "enemy combatant" categorization -- i.e. even if he was the military leader of a legitimate nation as opposed to a terrorist organization, it's still okay under the rules of war.
under the law of war, Obama and many other heads of state are civilians, and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva convention afforded as such.
under the law of war, Obama and many other heads of state are civilians, and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva convention afforded as such.
Are the joint chiefs civilians?
No.
I guess any nations that engage in war against the US reading this thread know where to shoot if they want to obey the Geneva Conventions. Should make a good plot for a Call of Doody-type game. I'm assuming that if the joint chiefs hang out with the president and other civilians, then they are safe. Just keep an intern around at all times.
Also, I wonder what kind of decisions the Joint Chiefs make on a daily basis. It might be interesting to have a video, board, or even role-playing game where 6 players are co-op as the joint chiefs.
I was just thinking today, you know how when they're talking about a political event in a textbook, they'll often include political cartoons from the time-period? I can't wait to see all the political image macros like the one's we're posting being printed in textbooks when talking about Obama or Bush Jr's presidency.
I'm not actually sure, that's kind of a tricky one. On the surface, they are they are Members of the Armed forces(And obviously not civilians), and obviously they're some the highest ranked(and the highest ranked, in the case of the Chairman), But they also have no operational command authority. The Chain of Command Goes President, Secretary of Defense, And then to the UCC, completely bypassing the JCOS.
I think they would be considered soldiers hors de combat(Edit - Meaning "Outside the fight"), considering, but don't quote me on that, I'm not familiar enough with the Current JCOS organization and members or how they would fall under the laws of war(Not a lawyer, remember) to be able to give you a solid answer.
I'm not actually sure, that's kind of a tricky one. On the surface, they are they are Members of the Armed forces(And obviously not civilians), and obviously they're some the highest ranked(and the highest ranked, in the case of the Chairman), But they also have no operational command authority. The Chain of Command Goes President, Secretary of Defense, And then to the UCC, completely bypassing the JCOS.
I think they would be considered soldiers hors de combat(Edit - Meaning "Outside the fight"), considering, but don't quote me on that, I'm not familiar enough with the Current JCOS organization and members or how they would fall under the laws of war(Not a lawyer, remember) to be able to give you a solid answer.
They're officers at the top of the officer pay scale. Just remember that there are 2 components to officer Rank: time in service and paygrade. Paygrade goes from O-1(2nd Lieutenant, Ensign) - O-10(General, Admiral) Time in service: Time you spent in the military. so someone could have been a General longer than you, but if your time in service is longer, and you advance to O-10 you are immediately senior to that person. *Exception: Positional Authority, if you are in a billet(job) that has positional seniority then you are senior regardless of the time in service. So the JCS might not be the most senior people in the military, but by virtual of their billet(job) they are effectively the highest rank.
I knew the crap I learned it the military would eventually come into play here!
oh and the Geneva Convention has different classes and the way the law effects you is based on that class. Generally you're not supposed to kill officers unless they are directly engaged in combat operations.
Scott, do you know the difference between officials of a sovereign nation and terrorist cell leaders? Please tell me you do. Please tell me that you understand al-Qaida is not a recognized government.
They're officers at the top of the officer pay scale.
Allow me to rephrase that for clarity - I'm not familiar with who the current JCOS are and what other roles they may hold within the US military, because while I'm vaguely familiar with the command structure, I'm not exactly perfect. I do already know how rank works however, as much as I appreciate the effort.
oh and the Geneva Convention has different classes and the way the law effects you is based on that class. Generally you're not supposed to kill officers unless they are directly engaged in combat operations.
I'm pretty sure that's not Exactly the case, but I may be wrong - I've always been under the impression that the Geneva convention only handled issues of rank in that manner when speaking of the treatment of POWs, Not lawful combatants on the battlefield, which are (Very generally, of course, devil in the details) Fair game. But then again, I could easily be wrong, so if you can point me to the section that indicates this, please do - a lack of knowledge(or at the least forgetfulness or error) on my part is something I should correct.
Speaking of, I will correct myself - the JCOS would not be considered soldiers Hors de combat, because that specifically refers to soldiers unable to perform their regular function for one reason or another, usually wounded, sickness or detained - in other words, I made a stupid-ass mistake on that when I should know better.
Scott, do you know the difference between officials of a sovereign nation and terrorist cell leaders? Please tell me you do. Please tell me that you understand al-Qaida is not a recognized government.
I do understand that. It makes a huge difference in terms of legality, but as far as I'm concerned it makes no difference in terms of morality. People are people. Terrorist, rebel, president, civilian, combatant, these are all arbitrary labels used to make the actions of one person appear as the greatest good while the exact same actions perpetrated by another person the greatest evil. I don't fall for that kind of double-speak. Osama bin Laden provided resources and training to murderers, and gave orders to those people to commit murder. So has Gaddafi, so has every US president, so has almost every leader of any nation in history.
Even if you give Osama bin Laden full credit for all of the terrorist actions with which he is associated, his kill count is in the thousands. If you do that, then you must also give US President William McKinley credit for the atrocities of the Philippine-American war. The number of Philippine civilians killed in that war is hotly debated. They're not sure how many hundreds of thousands were killed in concentration camps.
Historically speaking Osama bin Laden is a really minor evil. He's not even a hundredth as bad as William Mckinley! Compared to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, and friends he doesn't even rate. He doesn't even get a nomination, let alone an honorable mention.
Osama bin Laden was without a doubt an evil person. He even believed that it was ok if "real" muslims, just as fundamentalist as he was, were killed in collateral damage from a terrorist attack because they would be sorted into muslim heaven/hell appropriately. All I've been trying to say is that he wasn't anywhere nearly as successful at being evil, as dangerous, or as important as he is portrayed in the media. Historically, he's a chump. He's a step above guys like Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper, but below all the real evildoers of history.
An order of magnitude more people were put to the guillotine during the reign of terror in France than were killed by anything even possibly related to Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks. Need more examples?
Remember how I thought that was tricky(Though I did expand that into what exactly they would be, since they're not civilians)? Well, I asked someone who knows better, and thus came the answer "No, of course they're not civilians, but you'd generally consider them Non-combatants unless they were in the field in a command capacity."
I also asked about this -
oh and the Geneva Convention has different classes and the way the law effects you is based on that class. Generally you're not supposed to kill officers unless they are directly engaged in combat operations.
And got a derisive reply and laughter. At least I was nice about it, I suppose.
Other than that, Scott's Mentioned Morality after trying to bring up an argument that's been previously defeated, and you know what that means -
I agree with Scott that in the grand scheme of things, Osama bin Laden was not the big bad wolf people portray him to be. I maintain to this day that we should have treated the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a criminal act, and openly called bin Laden and those involved nothing more than criminals and murderers. The combined actions of everyone in his name fail to approach the deadliness of our highways. He was literally beneath my contempt.
Also, I know it will never change, but calling him bin Laden is incorrect. You can call him Osama or Osama bin Laden, but not just bin Laden. bin Laden means "son of Laden," it's not really a surname. My dad's name is Harvey. If we were muslim my name could be Scott bin Harvey. You're not going to call me "son of Harvey."
But, Osama bin Laden is the most notable and (in)fmaous bin Laden. If you were the most noteworthy "Son of Harvey," then the title is satisfactorily denotative. Is there any other bin Laden to whom the vast majority of people would refer? We call "Adolf Hitler" simply "Hitler," despite this being just a surname. How is "bin Laden" different?
Now, if you want to actually argue this point, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov is a better example. You can't just call him Korsakov, as that isn't even his surname: it's nothing. It would be like calling me "Ry."
Other than that, Scott's Mentioned Morality after trying to bring up an argument that's been previously defeated, and you know what that means -
Scott's Morality is a lot like Rym's Ageism. They trot those out when they are defeated because they mistakenly believe they are invincible trump cards.
Losing an argument? Just change the subject and start talking about morality and how your morality must be followed by everyone. Still losing? Just claim that things will change soon because all the young kids agree with you.
And how notable are they? What history books will write about them as more than footnotes? Address my Hitler point or concede defeat. ;^)
A surname is still part of your name. Calling me Rubin is appropriate, because it's part of my name. Hitler was part of Hitler's name. bin Laden isn't really part of his name. He's like Sting, his only name is Osama. Son of Laden isn't actually part of his name.
Wikipedia saves the day again.
The Arabic linguistic convention would be to refer to him as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden" alone, as "bin Laden" is a patronymic, not a surname in the Western manner. In its expanded form, it means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Awad, son of Laden".
And how notable are they? What history books will write about them as more than footnotes? Address my Hitler point or concede defeat. ;^)
A surname is still part of your name. Calling me Rubin is appropriate, because it's part of my name. Hitler was part of Hitler's name. bin Laden isn't really part of his name. He's like Sting, his only name is Osama. Son of Laden isn't actually part of his name.
Wikipedia saves the day again.
The Arabic linguistic convention would be to refer to him as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden" alone, as "bin Laden" is a patronymic, not a surname in the Western manner. In its expanded form, it means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Awad, son of Laden".
So this only applies to Arabic names, and I can call you "Son of Harvey" without issue.
Scott's Morality is a lot like Rym's Ageism. They trot those out when they are defeated because they mistakenly believe they are invincible trump cards.
I never trot that out when I'm defeated. I use it exclusively to complain or troll, but it never servers as an actual argument.
Losing an argument? Just change the subject and start talking about morality and how your morality must be followed by everyone. Still losing? Just claim that thing will change soon because all the young kids agree with you.
I'm not saying anyone else must follow my morality. I'm just saying what my morality is and why and also complaining that other people are too cowardly or unsure of their own morality to do the same. Thus, presenting myself as above the fray. I shant squabble with you lowlifes about some meaningless particulars of language and law. I care not for such arbitrary constructions. Countries, laws, and labels have no meaning for me. All I see are people, and I shall judge them by their actions and by evidence thereof.
Comments
However, I also have no illusions that we live in 1939 to 1945 anymore. Which does make a difference, since WW2 was considered a "Total War" - which is now Outlawed by the fourth Geneva convention, Which was adopted in 1949. And that means that Obama, Despite being commander in chief, is not considered a member of the nation's armed forces or a valid target - as a side note, IIRC, America has a very strong tradition of having an explicitly Civilian controlled military but anyway - under the law of war, Obama and many other heads of state are civilians, and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva convention afforded as such.
Also, I wonder what kind of decisions the Joint Chiefs make on a daily basis. It might be interesting to have a video, board, or even role-playing game where 6 players are co-op as the joint chiefs.
I think they would be considered soldiers hors de combat(Edit - Meaning "Outside the fight"), considering, but don't quote me on that, I'm not familiar enough with the Current JCOS organization and members or how they would fall under the laws of war(Not a lawyer, remember) to be able to give you a solid answer.
Paygrade goes from O-1(2nd Lieutenant, Ensign) - O-10(General, Admiral)
Time in service: Time you spent in the military.
so someone could have been a General longer than you, but if your time in service is longer, and you advance to O-10 you are immediately senior to that person.
*Exception: Positional Authority, if you are in a billet(job) that has positional seniority then you are senior regardless of the time in service.
So the JCS might not be the most senior people in the military, but by virtual of their billet(job) they are effectively the highest rank.
I knew the crap I learned it the military would eventually come into play here!
oh and the Geneva Convention has different classes and the way the law effects you is based on that class. Generally you're not supposed to kill officers unless they are directly engaged in combat operations.
Speaking of, I will correct myself - the JCOS would not be considered soldiers Hors de combat, because that specifically refers to soldiers unable to perform their regular function for one reason or another, usually wounded, sickness or detained - in other words, I made a stupid-ass mistake on that when I should know better.
Even if you give Osama bin Laden full credit for all of the terrorist actions with which he is associated, his kill count is in the thousands. If you do that, then you must also give US President William McKinley credit for the atrocities of the Philippine-American war. The number of Philippine civilians killed in that war is hotly debated. They're not sure how many hundreds of thousands were killed in concentration camps.
Historically speaking Osama bin Laden is a really minor evil. He's not even a hundredth as bad as William Mckinley! Compared to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, and friends he doesn't even rate. He doesn't even get a nomination, let alone an honorable mention.
Osama bin Laden was without a doubt an evil person. He even believed that it was ok if "real" muslims, just as fundamentalist as he was, were killed in collateral damage from a terrorist attack because they would be sorted into muslim heaven/hell appropriately. All I've been trying to say is that he wasn't anywhere nearly as successful at being evil, as dangerous, or as important as he is portrayed in the media. Historically, he's a chump. He's a step above guys like Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper, but below all the real evildoers of history.
An order of magnitude more people were put to the guillotine during the reign of terror in France than were killed by anything even possibly related to Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks. Need more examples?
I also asked about this - And got a derisive reply and laughter. At least I was nice about it, I suppose.
Other than that, Scott's Mentioned Morality after trying to bring up an argument that's been previously defeated, and you know what that means -
Now, if you want to actually argue this point, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov is a better example. You can't just call him Korsakov, as that isn't even his surname: it's nothing. It would be like calling me "Ry."
Losing an argument? Just change the subject and start talking about morality and how your morality must be followed by everyone. Still losing? Just claim that things will change soon because all the young kids agree with you.
Wikipedia saves the day again.