In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: battlefield robots

03 Aug

...read Quirin as you do. It was not articulating a battlefield status, the term "unlawful combatants" referred to combatants whose conduct made them subject to punishment for a law of war violation. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Bush era use of that term was a precursor to "membership" targeting. I am not even sure that membership in a terrorist group is sufficient for targeting in current U.S. practice, as you assert. As Kevin's comments suggest, more is typically alleged to be present then simple...
03.08.12 | |

26 Mar

..., every commander is also a soldier , who needs to obey orders , whether – those of his superior , or above all – Political authority , In such : 3) We need to think , whether , at least , some liability , should be shifted , also to politician . If so , they would think twice before any military action , and we shall have less victims by all means . It's their call finally , for which, commanders, at the battlefield, may pay heavily. And...
26.03.15 | |

17 Jul

...without the responsibility of their superiors. For , one will have to prove first , or deal first : with - effective control , lack or not , of education and instructions, before dismissing any commander , and superior . On the battlefield, not an easy task!! All that , without expressing here , any opinion concerning the Marmara vessel case , since, what happened there, factually , is far as hell from the common assumptions. But , the Israeli governments , always choose not to deal with judicial arenas...
17.07.15 | |

06 Feb

...at any time and in any place. There is no requirement that there be a battlefield already in place before a soldier is attacked (or else who could fire the first shot since there is no battle without the shot, but there could legally be no shot without the battle first). Thus the legality of a Predator strike depends on the status of the target and not his location. If he is a regular soldier in a regular army, or if he is a member of an armed unit of...
06.02.10 | |

25 Mar

...— this was an enormously positive step. Second, on the substance. On first read, I think this is a great statement. It addresses an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. But it also asserts self-defense several times as an alternative. I had been greatly concerned, frankly, that the administration’s lawyers would narrowly confine the justification for targeted killing using drones to situations that would really only cover the military using them on active battlefields. But on first read, this statement does not do that at all....
25.03.10 | |

06 Jun

...an B52, or .50 cal round from an M82A1 sniper rifle against an enemy military commander is ordinary combat. Although literally a targeted killing, it is no different from any battlefield death involving an aimed weapon. Certainly it no longer falls within any reasonable defnition of "extrajudicial execution". There will still be some who argue that even if an attack on a Taliban comander in Afghanistan is combat, the same attack launched five minutes later after he crossed the Pakistan border is somehow legally different. US practice seems to agree...
06.06.09 | |

29 Apr

...of these inputs may be more democratic/representative than states, some less. As for the latter, precisely because transnational law is happening outside traditional central governmental channels they are to some extent uncontrollable. What the Obama administration does can affect the course of transnational law but it can't put a lid on it. The Bush administration supplied the ideal control test for that -- if they couldn't resist IL than nobody can. So the battlefield is sprawling: the turf of a confirmation episode is only a minute part of the landscape....
29.04.09 | |

29 Apr

...tried by their state of nationality for "aiding the enemy" regardless of where their acts occurred. Ex parte Milligan essentially establishes that in U.S. territory they must be tried by Article III courts if not tried (and potentially committed) in an area of active conflict that has "closed the courts." In occupied or combat zones, though, the offense stems from a different source. The protection of civilians on the battlefield in the laws of war began as (and to some extent still is) a bargained-for exchange. This is very clear...
29.04.10 | |

31 Jul

...battlefield. What's wrong with having the Toledo case in Toledo like the US v. Amawi case this summer in the Northern District Federal Court. Some might think a dicey case (someone invites you to go to a shooting range and that becomes an act in furtherance of a conspiracy) but it sure seemed the process was as fair as we get in the best of our judicial system. 4) Trying of 1, 2, or 3 for war crimes type violations - stateside in the ordinary courts - DC Circuit for...
31.07.08 | |

04 Nov

...would pose a hypothetical, and when the student response was "He can't do that," the professor would reply: "Can't hell, he just did. What are you going to do about it?" Howard Gilbert The Rome Statute Article 8 requires a violation of the Geneva Conventions which in turn require the act take place within the context of an armed conflict. KSM was captured by the Pakistani ISI pretending to be a civilian and living in Rawalpindi, far beyond the range of any active battlefield. Kevin, I do not see how...
04.11.10 | |

23 Apr

...national security? Tsutsugamushi "The relevance of the distinction is that the Nazis had no logical reason to fear that the Jews threatened their national security. In fact, they had no reasonable basis for doing what they did. " On what ground is it reasonable to abduct somebody in Europe or from a US airport ignoring somehow this person is nowhere near a battlefield -leaving aside the thousands with no apparent ties to terrorism that were bought from bountyhunters- and then claim they were about to "attack" the US? In other...
23.04.09 | |

09 May

...the right to eliminate its enemies on the battlefield, but the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war do not permit this sort of action. At the time of his death, bin Laden was subject to U.N. sanctions including an asset freeze and travel ban. But US hadn't territorial control over OBL area, wasn't within custody of US forces & was hors de combat for the purposes of IHL/OBL. In the light of the evidence and The rule of Law: In the case of OBL, UN “Basic Principles on the...
09.05.11 | |