Originally Posted by MarkV
I'm not confusing anything its illegal and US law reflects this and uses the word assassination.
Heck no. It is against an executive order by the President, meaning that it is officially not part of policy. If tomorrow the President in office issues an executive order rescinding the ban on assassinations, that's the end of the ban. It's not a law, it's policy.
Additionally, yes, sure, the word "assassination" is used. However, an official analysis of the issue prsented to the Congress in 2002 by a law expert working for the DoD mentions that as far as "assassination" goes, "in time of peace
, an element of covert action
or surprise attack may be required for a killing for political purposes to be deemed an
assassination, particularly where the target is a private individual rather than a public figure
or national leader. The murder for political purposes of a national leader in time of peace may
be regarded by some as an assassination solely because of the target, while others might also
consider whether a surprise attack was involved."
However, that's for "time of peace" (emphasis mine) and for "private individuals", "political purposes" and "national leaders".
On the other hand, the same source says that
"“Treacherous” is not defined in the Hague Convention IV, but does not appear to be
interpreted to foreclose operations in time of war involving the element of surprise.11
However, putting a price on the head of an enemy appears to be regarded by some as an act
which would render a resulting killing an assassination, as distinguished from a lawful attack
on legitimate military targets, including the enemy chain of command.12"
In conclusion, you are out of your depth here.
To make a practical example:
- The USA declare war on North Korea (a state of war thus exists),
- The North Korean President also is the commande rin chief of the armed forces (therefore he's considered as military personnel and part of the enemy chain of command),
- A US aircraft clearly marked as such launches a surprise strike and a missile kills the North Korean President.
The above is a totally legitimate military operation in wartime, and good luck to you trying to prosecute the pilot or the officer ordering it on the absurd assumption that it's an "assassination".
Here's something to read for you: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21037.pdf
Nor can an extensive reading of Article 23(b) of Hague IV 1907 be passed as the US interpretation of that article. Take for instance the US field manual concerning military law of 1956:
"U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), which provides (paragraph 31):
[Article 23(b), Annex to Hague Convention IV, 1907] is construed as
prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or
putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward
for an enemy “dead or alive.” "
A very restrictive definition, that makes the wartime targeting of a general, or the
top general of the enemy, by an otherwise not illegally operating serviceperson, totally legitimate.
Much is made of the Executive Orders. Interestingly, when Ford talked about his own, the original one, he did mention he did not want that sort of shenanigans "in peacetime"
I have plenty of other official US sources to quote, field manuals, advisory notes by military law experts, the works. Just insist, and I'll keep providing corrections.
You refusal to accept anything that confounds your own interpretation is exceedingly arrogant and uncomely
You, on the other hand, did not look up for a quote confirming your claim that the IMT minutes support your idea. Or you did and did not find it.
My apologies if I sounded arrogant. However, I think it's a lesser sin to be arrogant and right, than humble and wrong.