Gary Solis, “Adjunct Professor” at Georgetown University Law Center puked up some crap and the Washington Post printed it. The gist of his article was that CIA operators of the drone attacks in Afghanistan makes them “unlawful combatants” no different from the terrorist rag heads that they are targeting, and subject to “lawful attacks” by the wherever they are found, whether in the U.S.A. or in Afghanistan (where several were recently killed by a suicide bomber).
“In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents [operating drones over Afghanistan] are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities….”
“If the CIA civilian personnel recently killed by a suicide bomber in Khost, Afghanistan, were directly involved in supplying targeting data, arming or flying drones in the combat zone, they were lawful targets of the enemy, although the enemy himself was not a lawful combatant….”
Well la-dee fucking da! I’m sure their relatives and friends will be happy to hear that Mr. Solis thinks that they were unlawful combatants and “lawful targets of the enemy.” I’m glad that you served in ‘Nam and are a distinguished scholar, but I wonder what happened to your common sense? No, Dumbass of the Year Nominee, it is not “lawful” to target anybody when you yourself are an unlawful combatant.
Ask yourself this: If the suicide bomber who killed the CIA agents had lived, could he have been prosecuted? Hell yes. He did not kill the agents in “self-defense.” It is not an excuse that he was trying to protect other unlawful combatants from being killed. They had no rights not to be killed. Since they are unlawful themselves, it is never “lawful” for them to kill our soldiers or civilians–or anybody–you incredible dumbass. Beyond that, what difference does it make whether the CIA are lawful or unlawful when they are killed? They are still dead. And are you implying that, except for the fact that the CIA agents were “out of uniform,” the ragheads wouldn’t try to kill our agents? Whether they were “unlawful combatants” or not is totally irrelevant. Rag heads don’t abide by the Geneva Convention.
But hey, I know where you are going with this: You are angling to be appointed by A.G. Holder along with all those other attorneys who defended the Muslim terrorists, aren’t you big boy? You will fit right in the Obama Adminstration, I’ll say that.
p.s. Here’s another article he wrote over two years ago where he asked whether our system of military justice is broken. His main points: Some of those soldiers accused of massacring civilians in Haditha had their charges dropped. Oh my! JAG Corp prosecutors were no match for the civilian lawyers appointed to defend our troops! Oh me! Military juries seem to demand absolute proof rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt!” Oh my! And sometimes sentences meted out by military juries are not commensurate with the crime! Oh no!
Well boo-frickin’ hoo, we have those same problems in our civilian system of justice. When accused of crimes civilian crimes, especially the rich are able to hire lawyers that are more experienced and able than their prosecutors. Many civilians often have their charges dropped. And civilian juries often don’t follow the law, either. Say hello to John Murtha when you see him in hell. I’m sure you and him were BFF.
[Too harsh? Let me know. I sometimes get carried away.]