German government wants to continue to avoid the sensitive issue of targeted killing “targeted killing” circumnavigate
Even after the answer of the ministry of defense to the question of an SPD member of parliament, much remains vague and the justification for the claimed legitimacy is missing
At the beginning of august, after it became known that the bundeswehr was cooperating with U.S. Task force 373, federal minister westerwelle declared that targeted killings, i.E., the killing of suspected extremists outside of combat, were perfectly legal. The german armed forces have also declared that targeted killings are legal under international law, and that they have been used by isaf troops in afghanistan and the "nato rules and regulations" provided. However, it was explained that they only cooperate in drawing up lists of suspected extremists, but the armed forces, along with special forces, follow a self-imposed rule and only seize suspects d. H. Leave the killing or elimination to U.S. Forces or those of other states (federal government remains vague on targeted killings).
But then isaf spokesman and german brigadier general josef dieter blotz went a step further and explained that it is also part of the tasks of the special forces command KSK to hunt down taliban in a targeted manner and to "" (sonderkommando KSK is engaged in targeted killings in afghanistan).
Rolf mutzenich, the SPD parliamentary group’s spokesman on foreign policy, said after wikileaks published the secret documents of the U.S. Military on june 30, 2009, that it was "interesting enough" that all sides appear to be in agreement. In a parliamentary question to the german government on july 7, we asked about the targeted killings by U.S. Special forces 373. On 16. In august, he received an official response from thomas kossendy, parliamentary state secretary in the german ministry of defense.
The situation is not completely clear in this letter, which is available to telepolis. After all, the question of targeted killings in conflicts is not only controversial in germany and is overall a legal gray area. Kossendy, however, disagrees with brigadier general and explains that in the case of involvement of german soldiers "exclusively recommending the action ‘arrest’" . Are german soldiers at "access operations" if a person is involved in, carries out or has responsibility for the arrest, then this happens "exclusively with the aim of arresting the person". This is clearly formulated and means that even the KSK does not eliminate suspected extremists by targeted killings.
It is claimed that "in a non-international armed conflict, the government troops and the troops supporting them may target enemy combatants outside of participation in concrete hostilities on the basis of international humanitarian law, which may also include the use of lethal force." however, international law sets limits – which are not specified in detail – as to whether "certain actions are in accordance with the volkerrecht", konne "only in individual cases with knowledge of all relevant facts by the appointed authorities" will be decided. There seems to be good that the targeted killings carried out in covert operations have so far eluded closer scrutiny, with the very fact that militaries and intelligence agencies decide who goes on the kill list taking place without any legal scrutiny, so that it is "extralegal killings" acts.
The question also arises as to whether the U.S.-supported "global war on terror" noch als "nicht-internationaler konflikt" after all, the US intelligence services and special forces also operate across national borders and, with the approval of the other isaf states, carry out targeted killings using drones and other weapons.A. In pakistan aus.
About the list, which was compiled in the "isaf targeting process" to "identification and selection of potential military targets" the german armed forces participate, according to the secretary of state, one does not learn exactly what would be necessary to assess whether it is legitimately created. It merely states that "recommendations for action are assigned to target persons on the basis of a defined list of criteria. In the case of persons who participate directly or permanently in hostilities, the possibility of recommending the use of targeted lethal military force exists".
Although kossendy explains in detail the approval process for the "control of german targets" in which "different lists of effects" and the "recommendations", which appears to be "target folders (a kind of dossier about the target)" also by the german armed forces operations command, and "ministerial approval" but it also remains unclear, for example, whether a targeted killing was recommended by the german side "recommended" which forces from other isaf states then pursue in order not to get their hands dirty directly. Yes, and what about the KSK?
If so much secrecy can already be practiced with a bundeswehr that still knows compulsory military service, then this probably became even worse with a professional army, which defense minister guttenberg is after, albeit a bit veiled.
Uncertain legal basis for targeted killings
It is also not as if there was no discussion about the legitimacy of the drone attacks in pakistan, which are also to be understood as targeted killings. In april, for example, a congressional committee dealt with the ie (are targeted killings with drones self-defense or murder??). The primary point of contention, however, was whether the drone strikes were not directed at afghanistan or the united states. The declared war zones had to be restricted. Already in another committee, law professor kenneth anderson of the american university had urged to create a legal basis for the drone attacks, even if he considered them justified in principle in the context of a far-reaching self-defense (does the U.S. Drone war violate international law??).
In june, philip alston, the UN special representative for extralegal executions, presented a report to the UN human rights council, in which he also pointed out the lack of a legal basis for targeted killings by drones, which were still the main focus of attention at the time. He demands, which the german government and especially defense minister von guttenberg should also do quickly, that states that carry out or want to carry out targeted killings make public the legal basis they claim and justify why this should be in accordance with international law. It also had to ensure that the killings could be justified, listed, and publicly audited (a U.S. Military strategist also laid this out in a 2006 report). Alston does not oppose targeted killings in principle, saying they are then permitted in armed conflicts, "if they are directed against combatants or civilians committing acts similar to combat directly" (targeted killings with combat drones increasingly violate international law).
The geneva convention I is actually formulated quite clearly.
In the event of an armed conflict which is not international in character and which arises on the territory of one of the high contracting parties, each of the parties to the conflict shall be required to apply at least the following provisions:
1. Persons not taking direct part in hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and persons who have been put out of action as a result of illness, wounding, capture or any other cause, shall be treated with humanity in all circumstances ..,
For this purpose, the following are and will remain prohibited at all times and in all places with respect to the persons mentioned above: a. Attacks on life and limb, namely murder of any kind, silencing, cruel treatment and torture; (…) d. Convictions and executions without prior judgment by a duly constituted tribunal offering the legal guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
According to the hague convention of 1907, in article 22 in the war "the assassination or wounding of members of the enemy nation or army" prohibited. Here it would depend on how one defines assassinating. Is the use of a drone in afghanistan or pakistan, piloted in the united states, to destroy a house with missiles or directly kill a person in the night, an act of assassination??
When president clinton chose to bomb targets in sudan and afghanistan in 1998, it was probably not considered an attempt at targeted killing because of the weapon used, namely tomahawk missiles, although the attack from a distance was not part of a declared war. Therefore, these attacks may have violated gerald ford’s 1975 presidential executive order, which clinton did not rescind, prohibiting anyone working for the U.S. Government from engaging in assassinations. Immediately after the 11.9. But the US government started with targeted killings (murder by order of the US president). This was done secretly, after auben one was still trying to distinguish oneself from the targeted killings or assassinations carried out by israel (license to kill on the global battlefield).
