Fra et grunnleggende etisk synspunkt ville det vært veldig rart om øverstkommanderende i en fiendtlig hær skulle være fredet, mens fotsoldatene ikke er det. Det er da heller ingen ting i 23B som verner fiendtlige ledere, enten det er en selvutnevnt oberst eller en general som har arvet verdigheten. Her er artikkel 23 i sin helhet:
Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
De viktige ordene i 23B er "kill or wound treacherously individuals". Uten ordet "treacherously" er paragrafen meningsløs. En soldat sikter som regel på en eller flere fiendtlige soldater, "individuals", i det han trekker av. Det er krigens natur. Da er spørsmålet hva som menes med "treacherously". Det klargjøres i
tilleggsprotokollen til Geneve-konvensjonen:
Art 37. Prohibition of Perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
Å kle seg ut som journalist eller Røde Kors-personell for å komme på skuddhold er "treacherous". Å invitere fyren til et forhandlingsmøte om våpenhvile for så å henrette ham når han møter opp er "treacherous". Å sende en laserstyrt bombe ned i en kommandosentral hvor øverstkommanderende er til stede er alminnelig krigføring.
Executive order 12333, punkt 2.11 sier:
No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
Den formuleringen kommer opprinnelig fra Gerald Fords EO 11905 (1976) og ble gjentatt av Jimmy Carters EO 12036 (1978).
Som vi nettopp så demonstrert i utkanten av Abbottabad er det lite i disse ordrene som ikke kan overprøves av en annen ordre fra presidenten. Helt siden 1998 har det vært et eksplisitt unntak for terrorister i den praksisen. Og igjen, dødsfallet til en militær offiser som befinner seg i en kommandosentral når den blir angrepet under krigshandlinger kan ikke beskrives som "assassination". Et SEAL-raid inn på soverommet hans ville vært nærmere en rimelig tolkning av ordet "assassination".
Så, nei, Asle Toje har ikke skjønt det, han har misforstått kapitalt.
