Thread: One bullet
View Single Post
Old 26 Sep 17, 05:39
MarkV's Avatar
MarkV MarkV is offline
General of the Forums
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Tenbury Wells
Posts: 12,122
MarkV is simply cracking [600]
MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600] MarkV is simply cracking [600]
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
This all revolves around the definition of "treacherously". If employing a sniper to kill a man who is the commander-in-chief of the enemy armed forces, and therefore a military commander, is "treacherous", why should employing a sniper on the battlefield be allowed? Isn't that "treacherous" too?

Personally, I like New Zealand's definition of treacherous killing: "the killing or wounding of a selected individual behind the line of battle by enemy agents or unlawful combatants" (emphasis mine). That would mean that a sniper passing himself off as an enemy civilian in an enemy town would be committing a treacherous killing; the same sniper wearing his army's uniform, even behind enemy lines, would be carrying out a legitimate military operation (provided the target was a combatant too, such as the commander-in-chief of the enemy armed forces). Likewise, the killing of Heydrich by soldiers who (I believe) were not wearing their uniform amounted to treachery, and was a war crime (if I am correct that they were not wearing a uniform), but the killing of Yamamoto was not. The killing of Hamas military leaders by missiles launched by Israeli aircraft also isn't a crime.

Your complete misunderstanding of what amounts to a treacherous killing is excusable, of course, because there is no hard and fast legal definition of what is treachery. Military manuals try and provide examples, though, and they generally draw a line at "hiring an assassin" (i.e. a professional, civilian murderer) or "putting a price on the head" of the target or "outlawing" him (which again would amount to a free-for-all which would include civilian killers, disguises, perfidy etc.). They also strive to point out that "obviously, it does not preclude lawful attacks by lawful combatants, on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy" (emphasis mine). The quote is from a US Air Force manual, which is interesting in itself.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, i.e. the IMT, of course accepted the Hague Conventions as customary law; the point would be whether there is a ruling that says that specifically targeting one enemy officer by a lawful combatant, without the use of perfidy, means a "treacherous" killing.
I have had a look at the IMT files, and I don't find a reference to "assassination" and to that Hague IV 1907 provision in the same page. But if you have such a reference, please provide it.

You are confusing state policy and international law, and you are also mixing up the peacetime killing of civilian politicians with targeted military operations against military commanders in wartime.

As a side note, we all remember that Hitler held a military rank. He was a German officer in wartime.
I'm not confusing anything its illegal and US law reflects this and uses the word assassination. You refusal to accept anything that confounds your own interpretation is exceedingly arrogant and uncomely
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)
Reply With Quote