I want the name of the dumb ass who called himself teaching you GC.
the gc does not forbid targeting the government you’re at war with.
The name.
If you think the GC says you can’t target the governemnt you’re at war with, by all means quote it
The name. All I need is the name.
couldn’t find it in there? Let me help
US executive orders ban political assassinations:
In 1977, following revelations of U.S. lethal targeting operations and ensuing Church (Senate) and the Pike (House) Committee hearings, President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11,905. The order prohibited Executive Branch personnel from engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, political assassination. Subsequent administrations continued the ban. Four years later, President Regan issued Executive Order 12,333, which, as amended, remains in effect today. It contains the same prohibition, although it limits application to individuals “acting on behalf of” the U.S. government.
Assassinations are banned under international law as well, but assassination is defined to involve an element of treachery.
Hence I mean by assassination a murder committed by means of treachery, whether the deed be done by persons who are subjects of him who is assassinated, or of his sovereign, and who are therefore traitors, or whether it be done by any other agent who makes his way in as a suppliant or refugee, or as a turncoat, or even as an alien; and I assert that the deed is a shameful and revolting one, both on the part of him who executes and of him who commands it . . .
. . . as the modern law of war emerged in the mid-19th century, the concept of assassination was already well-formed. It was lawful to kill an enemy beyond the battlefield or by employing stealth or trickery, but not lawful to use treachery to do so. Treachery comprised a breach of confidence by the attacker in a situation where the victim had reason to trust that attacker. . .
The most recent comprehensive treaty governing the conduct of hostilities is the 1977 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Additional Protocol I’s Article 37 styles acts during an armed conflict that were previously labeled assassination as “perfidy.” The article confirms again that the essence of the prohibition is treachery, not mere deception or trickery.
- It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
- Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/
so what?
Just the name.
the name, sure
U.R. Trolling
Now, until you can quote the section in the GC’s that says you are not allowed to kill the leader of the enmy forces that invaded your country. I’m done with you
I could. I’m not. You wouldn’t understand it.
I’m not trolling. I’m also not a 13 year-old girl. “U.R.”
so then, you actually have no clue and only want to troll
done with you again
The US has used “targeted killings” with impunity in the Middle East and has admitted to failed assassination attempts against foreign leaders.
The difference now is that the target of US-backed assassinations is able to retaliate in kind.
Oh I have a “clue”, even did more research to confirm this morning. Having been a Code of Conduct Instructor for about 5 years, I most definitely have a clue.
As a member and President of the Global Association of Former Master SERE Instructors of History, I need to do some correcting on my guild. Apparently some are putting out bad information and I can’t have that.
You accusing me of trolling because you are incapable of debating is Conduct Unbecoming. You need to correct that while I work on this other thing.
You took a very complex and far from settled issue, found a linky link that you feeeeel supports your wants, and made a declaration. Then proceeded to sling arrows from the parapets of your motte.
Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance all rolled into one. Same tactic you use when “discussing” The Ukraine and illegal immigration.
Newtonian/Cartesian. And boring.
Get out of your fee fees. Learn to debate.
Irony.
Not one single word of actual debate/
You’re wrong. Have a nice day.
Check out EO 12333. It came out in 1981, has been amended several times and is still in force. This came out of the Church committee findings.
an EO is not the GC’s and has no force over Ukraine
The question here is “Is Putin a legitimate target of Ukraine?”
of course he is
Our intell assets better not be aiding them in locating that target.
1 Like
if they were… he’d likely be dead already. I’m betting we know where he’s going to be before he does.
