
Court orders Germany to question US drone strikes - Tomte
https://www.dw.com/en/court-orders-germany-to-question-us-drone-strikes/a-47979480
======
zaroth
This concept of targeting civilians in a “continuous combat function” is
pretty complex.

I started reading about it [1] and 20 minutes later feel like I’ve barely
skimmed the surface of how hard it must be in modern combat modalities to
actually enforce this.

My brother is a JAG and worked on authorization of force issues in
Afghanistan. Part of his job was ensuring that rules of engagement were being
followed, but I’m looking forward to a more in-depth conversation — if he’s
willing to have it — next time we see each other.

People that are not in a regular armed force, do not wear a uniform, hold
rank, or report to a superior, may still be taking an active role in combat.
Can someone be a farmer by day, and a combatant by night? (a questioned posed
by the footnoted article) How long can they be directly targeted as a
combatant after a hostile act? What is a hostile act?

 _Continuous combat function requires lasting integration into an organized
armed group acting as the armed forces of a non-State party to an armed
conflict. Thus, individuals whose continuous function involves the
preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct
participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function._

Turns out there are fairly complex guidelines for all of this, and with the
amount of intelligence that is collected in the modern battlefield, there’s
even a chance to track this down to the individual level.

The _continuous combat function_ designation seems quite narrowly tailored,
for example it does not include military, political, or administrative
personnel who do not directly participate in hostilities (how convenient for
the politicians it is defined this way!). It does not include reservists who
are not actively serving.

A civilian who is not serving a continuous combat function in theory can only
be subject to direct attack while they are directly participating in
hostilities, which seems to include the planning, lead-up, execution, and
return from a hostile operation.

Apparently very little of this is explicitly defined under international law,
but there is a history and case law which can be used to draw guidelines from.

[1] - [https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/icrc-interpretive-
guida...](https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/icrc-interpretive-guidance-
notion-direct-participation-hostilities)

~~~
awakeasleep
Complexity is the fig leaf for the majority of modern evil- in the USA at
least.

It's too complex to understand! too complex to make a judgement.

Let's think about your farmer that tries to fight against the soldiers of a
government from the other hemisphere that are killing people within his
country- when he isn't trying to get food to survive and feed his family.

Is that actually a complex situation? No. There is a force from a world away
killing farmers in Afganistan for reasons that can not be explained except to
say 'it's complex'

~~~
paulddraper
> can not be explained

Aren't they being killed for violent insurrection and terrorist activities?

~~~
cyphar
Invading another country in a war of aggression is against international law.
I don't buy the argument that the US has any moral high ground here.

If another country started launching drone strikes on your country, overthrew
your government, and stationed troops in your cities to quell insurgence --
how would you react? Would you accept the status quo or would you fight? Do
you think they would also classify you as a terrorist for protecting your
home?

~~~
paulddraper
> for reasons that can not be explained except to say 'it's complex'

I explained it.

Are you saying it's more complex that?

~~~
cyphar
The point made was almost certainly sarcastic -- that the government and media
want to obfuscate the reasons why people are being killed. The point was that
the reasons why people are fighting against US occupation are much less
complicated than the media would have you believe.

I was pointing out that referring to retaliation against an illegal war of
aggression as "violent insurrection" and "terrorist activities" is not an
accurate portrayal (unless you'd also refer to US foreign policy as a
terrorist activity).

------
londons_explore
I've often wondered where the voice of civilians in warzones is.

Surely at least some of them can get a Twitter/Facebook campaign going viral
saying "Who bombed my grandma?" with photos of shrapnel etc which would
implicate a US drone strike.

There seems to be some kind of information firewall - only official
journalists embedded with allied forces ever seem to be able to put anything
on the bit of the web I see.

