Are civilians ever valid military targets?

Question

Two scenarios people seem to be ignoring:
The US President is the Commander in Chief of the US Military. Is he a valid military target?
What about munitions plants operated by civilians? These clearly support the war effort. If Germany or Japan could have projected their power, wouldn't Rosie the Riveter have been a valid target in WWII?

How far does it go? Are farms valid targets because they provide the military with food?

Answer 1

We vote, we elect the government, the government make war on our behalf, so we should be prepared to take responsibility for those actions.

... and there is nothing new about war 'these days', foolish people. Was not the American Revolution fought by Minutemen and guerrillas? Have not civilian/soldiers been around for millenia, and usually rejoicing in the fact that they are 'of the people'?

In Australia we have a heroine called Nancy Wake who fought with the French Resistance in WW2- nobody dares call her a terrorist even though that's exactly what, in another time and place, she is.

I suppose I think that morally we should make every effort to spare civilians pain and suffering, but as civilians we should not pretend we can allow our governments to make war and enjoy the products of brutal inequality (such as the coffee we drink picked by near-slave labour, the diamonds we wear being mined by slaves at gunpoint), and not have to face reality, responsibility and retribution.

Answer 2

Any commander in chief is a valid military target. As such, a commander-in-chief is not purely a civilian, so he falls outside of your definintion. As to farms, yes, they, along with any other piece of infrastructure, are a valid target. The civilians ON the farms and IN factories and such are not the target, merely the structures and facilities themselves. That civilians DO get killed in attacks on infrastructure is unfortunate, and that is called "Collateral damage".

Answer 3

Yes; this was one of recent modifications that they made at the onset of the GWOT since many of the combatants were not members of a strictly defined army with a rank structure and who wore uniforms and represented any defined government or country. As someone has said if they have a weapon and they are using it and pose a threat; they carry no civilian status then but rather that of an armed combatant.

Answer 4

Adam B is right unfortunately now adays terrorist like to use civilians as shields. No one i know in the military would just open fire in a place with civilians unless they have no way out and they are getting shot from all angles.

Answer 5

Yes, if the civilians are packing.
I think that the War on Terror would be better defined by treating more people as criminals than this vague "enemy combatant" business.

Edit: I just don't know how you define the word valid. As far as a civilian who is in charge of the military, we've treated foreign heads of state as military targets. I imagine that potential combatants see our leader in the same light.

Answer 6

Yes, it is perfectly legal to target war industries,

Even if their work force is civilians.

Because, you are not targeting civilians, you are targetting the war industry.

Now it would be illegal, to target the neighborhood, where the employees of the war industry worked, to kill them to prevent them from being able to make war supplies.

And the geneva convention, doesn't have a blanket ban on targetting civilan areas.

It actually says, you shouldn't target them, if there is any way around it.

But if a country puts a valid target in the mist of civilans, then it is still legal to target that military target, even though, it is in the myst of civilans.

But to answer your question, no civilans themselves are never a valid military target.

But it is not illegal to kill civilians, during an attack on a valid military target.

.
And it is illegal, to place a vaild military target in the myst of a civilan population.

IE: Hezbollah and Hamas, placing rocket launchers in school yards.

Answer 7

In what context do you base your question?

Terrorists intentionally target civilians or by their actions engage military forces from amongst civilians, this results in civilian casualties.

While there are documented accounts of civilians being killed, I say they are far from the norm, by all accounts the military try to avoid hitting innocent civilians*, but when fighting in an urban environment or fighting an enemy who dress as civilians then casualties will continue to occur.

A sad fact of life at the moment.

* Against the Geneva Convention.

* Alienates the local population.

* Provides new recruits to terror organisations.

* Not good for the military image.

* Bad Politics.

Answer 8

No, civilians are never a valid target, You are supposed to be a fighting man (woman) and fight your enemy. Armed Para military are valid targets if you do not place an AK 47 in their hand after their dead.

Answer 9

Intentionally, no their not. But in todays wars like Iraq & Afganistan, its hard to destinguish whos cavilain & who's not. It seems easy, just shoot the guy with the gun. But sometimes its not a gun, it could be a suicide bomber or a VBIED. They also use cavilians as cover sometimes. They will get a position that puts dozens of cavilians between them & the troops so troops will hopefully not shoot back, but sometimes you have too in order to save your life & the life of your soldiers. Also, sometimes on a few occasions, cavilains will put themself in the way hopeing it will discurage the troops from enganging. Its a very dangerous & blurry war line in these wars.

Answer 10

It is illegal to target "Civilians", however it is proper and legal... and in fact SOP to attack "Military Targets" or "Military Infra-structure" such as munitions plants and military manufacturing plants, such as tank or figher plane plants.

Even if they have civilians working in them.