Obama assinations policy in violation of The Geneva Conventions?????

We heard a lot about the Bush administration and their violations but now we see it in the news now, blown up in lights like it's glorious. Obama is busy having the leaders and members of al qaeda assinated with not a care in the world. I thought it was against the Geneva Convention..... Here's what I found on The Geneva Conventions website.

"Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863."

"Section IX : Assassination

Art. 148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism."

So under these guidelines, that would mean that the US is in fact violating the The Geneva Conventions, under the orders of Obama. It was disgusting that he wouldn't initiate a formal investigation in to the Bush administrations war crimes but now.....Well he's no better.

Originally posted by DJDigitalGem
It was disgusting that he wouldn't initiate a formal investigation in to the Bush administrations war crimes but now.....Well he's no better.

Its been said time and time again but it bears repeating. The President does not control the USA. Neither Republican, Democrat, Bush, Obama or Ron Paul.
True control lies higher, and less accountable.

The POTUS is more like Zaphod Beeblebrox.
He was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).

Originally posted by DJDigitalGem


So under these guidelines, that would mean that the US is in fact violating the The Geneva Conventions, under the orders of Obama. It was disgusting that he wouldn't initiate a formal investigation in to the Bush administrations war crimes but now.....Well he's no better.

Did you expect ANYTHING differently?

since when is AQ a recognized government ?

when they play be the rules, we play by the rules

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
since when is AQ a recognized government ?

when they play be the rules, we play by the rules

My response.... LOL It says....

either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw

Key words being INDIVIDUAL, CITIZEN, or OUTLAW.

Originally posted by DJDigitalGem

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
since when is AQ a recognized government ?

when they play be the rules, we play by the rules

My response.... LOL It says....

either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw

Key words being INDIVIDUAL, CITIZEN, or OUTLAW.

key words being hostile government. it's your source dude

do you really think the millions of lawyers out there have missed this one ?

LOL

reply to post by DJDigitalGem


and there you have it,a brief description of a civilized country and of a barbaric one.and people still having trouble in classification of there country or the state of our world for that matter.civilized? far from it! we have gone backwards into the darks of barbaric uncivilized world.dont let technology confuse you.or language of fancy.people still try to hold on to something thats not real.outlaws and goons,thiefs,,,,,,,the whole works! thats what we continue to elect and saport.savages.the law of the jungle,the strong survive.who has the army and the weapons and makes his own laws he does not obey him self? but enforce every law under the sun on others.

Alright let me give you guys the rundown of what the problem of this "terrorist" assassination in essence is.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a known terrorist and associated with Al-Qaida, but he was also a natural born U.S. citizen. The principles of democracy going as far back as biblical times in ancient Rome state that even if the citizen is in another country they are allowed a trial or to be punished by their home state. In the Bible, Peter was arrested in Palestine I believe and told his captors to take him to Rome because he was a Roman citizen, and that was where he would be tried and sentenced by the laws that governed his country and its citizens no matter where they are in the world.

The same thing is true with the United States all citizens will be held accountable for their actions here in the states and abroad. As a citizen of the United States we are afforded inalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.

With this recent assassination of an American citizen abroad all rights legal and innate were thrown out the window just so they could "get the bad guy."

Am I saying this guy was a good guy? NO.

Did he deserve the right to be tried under US laws and courts? YES

Is the government assassination of an American citizen illegal? YES

Now what this boils down to is the United States can label any foreign ex-patriot and citizen a "terrorist." With the terrorist labeling comes the loss of rights protected by law, and now apparently your own government can assassinate you if you step out of line.

This assassination is a grave threat to all Americans and their civil liberties and if you aren't mad right now about it you should be.

After all, this isn't communist Russia, or is it?

reply to post by DJDigitalGem

The Lieber Code is not the Geneva Conventions. In fact, it's not a convention at all. It's a regulation for the American Army that was in use in 1863. It has no force today. The successor of that regulation can be read here.

The Geneva Conventions are here. Also useful is the ICRC's database of customary law.

The question is does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists. I can’t quite remember the specifics but I know that under the Bush administration there were lots of legal advisors that created a web of legislation that effectively both allowed terrorists to be held under the Geneva Convention yet at the same time they were not subject to the same protections offered under the Geneva Convention. In particular they declared them enemy combatants (witch technically under the convention they are not) yet at the same time refused to offer them the protections under the 3rd article relating to torture.

With regard to assassination I think I am right in saying that the word “assassination” does not actually appear anywhere in the Geneva Conventions. Actually under international law assassination is somewhat of a ambiguous matter however under domestic law in America the matter is much less ambiguous.

Obama is in breach of Executive Order 12333 which bans the use of Assassination. If you want to get him for something go look to EO12333, that is what got Clinton stuck when he wanted to assassinate Bin Laden during the late 1990’s.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Obama is in breach of Executive Order 12333 which bans the use of Assassination. If you want to get him for something go look to EO12333, that is what got Clinton stuck when he wanted to assassinate Bin Laden during the late 1990’s.

Obama is the executive. He can rescind, amend, or replace EO 12333 any time he wants. But assassination has always been construed very narrowly, so he can order some killings without touching EO 12333. Killing Al Qaeda, which is authorized by legislation, is definitely not assassination.

Wow... so the crap they taught me in highschool was just that..... CRAP! LOL I always knew my teachers were full of it!

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by DJDigitalGem
It was disgusting that he wouldn't initiate a formal investigation in to the Bush administrations war crimes but now.....Well he's no better.

Its been said time and time again but it bears repeating. The President does not control the USA. Neither Republican, Democrat, Bush, Obama or Ron Paul.
True control lies higher, and less accountable.

The POTUS is more like Zaphod Beeblebrox.
He was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).

^ How it really goes down.
nice post.