Too bad, so sad.

Mon Dec 18 13:49:44 CST 2017

*2. What international law is applicable to targeted killings?*

The lawfulness of a targeted killing hinges in part on the applicable law,
which is determined by the context in which it takes place. International
humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is applicable during armed
conflicts, whether between states or between a state and non-state armed
groups. Hostilities between a state and an armed group are generally
considered to be an armed conflict when violence reaches a significant
threshold and the armed group has the capacity to abide by the laws of
war.  Rules of international humanitarian law are found in the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and its two Additional Protocols, the 1907 Hague
Regulations, and the customary laws of war.  Among other things, these
rules regulate the conduct of hostilities, including the targeting of
combatants, in all armed conflicts.

International human rights law is applicable at all times, but during armed
conflict it may be superseded by the laws of war.  International human
rights law can be found in treaties such as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and authoritative standards such as the Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
Human rights law upholds the right to life and provides rules for law
enforcement on when the use of lethal force is permissible. Outside of
armed conflict, lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to
prevent imminent harm to life, when arrest is not reasonably possible.

*2. What international law is applicable to targeted killings?*

The lawfulness of a targeted killing hinges in part on the applicable law,
which is determined by the context in which it takes place. International
humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is applicable during armed
conflicts, whether between states or between a state and non-state armed
groups. Hostilities between a state and an armed group are generally
considered to be an armed conflict when violence reaches a significant
threshold and the armed group has the capacity to abide by the laws of
war.  Rules of international humanitarian law are found in the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and its two Additional Protocols, the 1907 Hague
Regulations, and the customary laws of war.  Among other things, these
rules regulate the conduct of hostilities, including the targeting of
combatants, in all armed conflicts.

International human rights law is applicable at all times, but during armed
conflict it may be superseded by the laws of war.  International human
rights law can be found in treaties such as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and authoritative standards such as the Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
Human rights law upholds the right to life and provides rules for law
enforcement on when the use of lethal force is permissible. Outside of
armed conflict, lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to
prevent imminent harm to life, when arrest is not reasonably possible.

[image: Human Rights Watch] <https://www.hrw.org/>
Get Updates On Rights Issues From Around The Globe

Connect With Us

   - Twitter <https://twitter.com/hrw>
   - Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/HumanRightsWatch>
   - YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/HumanRightsWatch>
   - Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/humanrightswatch/>
   - Snapchat <https://www.snapchat.com/add/therealhrw>

   - Contact Us <https://www.hrw.org/contact-us>
   - Corrections <https://www.hrw.org/corrections>
   - Privacy Policy <https://www.hrw.org/privacy-policy>
   - Permissions <https://www.hrw.org/permissions>
   - Site Map <https://www.hrw.org/sitemap>

© 2017 Human Rights Watch
*Human Rights Watch* | 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor | New York, NY
10118-3299 USA | *t* 1.212.290.4700 <(212)%20290-4700>

Get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. Join our movement
today.
×
[image: Human Rights Watch] <https://www.hrw.org/>

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> There are some good things. He put the brakes on torture.  I don’t think
> much of the Affordable Care Act but it was an improvement for a lot of
> people. It just seems obvious that we are living in times when larger
> changes are needed. In his first presidential campaign he sounded like
> someone who knew that. When he hired his cabinet I felt betrayed. When he
> murdered Alaki’s son he joined the ranks of the war criminals. I like him
> as a person and often as a speaker, but regard him as a failure as a leader
> for the needs of his time.
>
> > On Dec 18, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's not all black and white, and Obama did some good things and
> also some bad things. Like, he wasn't perfect, but he could have done worse.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> > Obama never cast a vote against the war authorization. He said he "would
> have" voted against it , which is rather different ( this was why I voted
> for him in 2008). He did however vote aginst a war fundng bill that had no
> timetable for troop withdrawal. Apparently “mental mistakes” were made by
> Kohut as well as Tracy. I stand by  my core arguments.
> >   Generalized statements like “you have never been clear on what a
> President did and could not do” are your own noxious opinions. I already
> cut you out of my facebook page because of such insults. Try using some
> journalistic facts since you say you are so fond of them.
> > > On Dec 18, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, but more of your mental mistakes in clear visibility.
> > >
> > > Obama voted against that war and he, alone could not stop the
> funding...
> > > therefore he as you do always stand condemned with a generalized group
> you despise...
> > > You have never been clear on what a President did and could not do.
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> wrote:
> > > Sorry, but this is an oversimplification. The majority of Democrats
> supported the authorization to war sought by the mass killer  and torturer
> W. They , including Obama , did not use the power of the purse to deny
> funding for this war even when it far supassed W’s phony estimate for the
> cost to the taxpayers.
> > >   When Obama inherited the wars he increased spending in Afghanistan,
> increased drone attacks killing thousands of civilians, allowed the
> corruption in Iraq to continue, started a war in Libya and armed and
> financed the Salafists in Syria. That is what decent journalism shows.
> > >  The militarization of the US is bi partisan.
> > > > On Dec 18, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> • Third: Preznit Dubya and his criminal administration constructed
> this entire wasteful, Satanic enterprise upon a foundation of propaganda,
> forgery, and outright lies. There is no valid ethical, moral or legal
> justification for it, no matter how "easy" the task might eventually turn
> out to seem… relatively speaking.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> > >
> >
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20171218/9e32e5da/attachment.html>