Canadian sniper makes history by killing ISIL insurgent from more than 3.5 kilometres

Evilroddy said:

Braindrain:

There has been an escalating conflation or blurring of the military Title 10 Authorization and the Intelligence Title 50 Authorization since 2001. Not even your own government and JAGs have been able to keep the two prongs of covert action from crossing over.

You may find this article helpful in this debate:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/gross.pdf

Your invocation of US "exceptionalism" and your assertion that US covert special operations conform to US law does not address the whole story here. This thread is about a JTF-2 Sniper making a world record shot but I contend he was doing it while allegedly operating beyond the legal mandate given by the Canadian Government to the Canadian people when the operation (Impact) was last extended on March 31, 2017. So in this case US law does not apply. And since the Canadian and US militaries are cooperating more and more under an integrated command structure that puts Canadians who cannot claim US exceptionalism in legal jeopardy even if they operate within US law because they are subject to Canadian law.

The implied claim that the US can ignore international law and conventions with respect to war and other military operations is a political assertion and not a point of law. The US is bound by treaties and conventions which it has signed and which its senate has ratified and thus it must refrain from certain actions while conducting military operations. Transferring soldiers from military to intelligence authority makes those operations no less legal or illegal. It simply makes them more easily deniable. So playing a legal shell game with authorities might have worked prior to 9/11, 2001 when these operations were fewer in number but since then the acceleration of use and the blurring between Title 10 and Title 50 Authorities has gone too far to systematically distinguish between the two in quite a few operations (and those are only the ones we know about). The fact that the US is conducting military operations against sovereign nations which it is not at war with is a war crime, pure and simple. These special forces are no OSS operatives dropped behind enemy lines to fight a declared war or to help partisans fight an occupying power with which you are at war. The SFO teams which are infiltrating into foreign state not at war with the US are conducting strategic reconnaissance, espionage (despite being soldiers and not spies), shaping the battlefield operations, insurgent training missions to destabilise legally recognized governments, killing people and kidnapping people on foreign soil while not at war and conducting sabotage and other mischief. That is not cool.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

braindrain said:

Note I had to remove your last two paragraph to get under the 5000 limit.
No there is virtually nothing that US SOF do that is illegal by US law. And if there is anything that is done illegally those people are punished and removed from SOF. And US law is the only law that matters when it comes to what SOF personal are doing. The more you talk though the more obvious it is that your understanding of this is based more from CT sites then reality. You simply claiming something is illegal does not make it so. Most of your examples show you don't really understand the different authorities that SOF can operate under. Sometime look up the difference between title 10 and title 50.

You claiming there is not enough oversite in the US is nothing more then your opinion and frankly I doubt to many people care about the opinion of a CTer. And just because people have served in the military does not mean they have any clue as to what is going on within SOF in fact the vast majority of people in the military don't. But yes I have met a few CT loons in the military so the fact that you ran across a few doesn't surprise me. And every combat operation is reviewed in detail by the military. Every military command has a JAG team do make sure everything that is approved is both legal and falls under the approved ROE and the higher commanders intent. And all the politicians involved in the descion making process can review it any time they like. I am sorry you feel this is not enough but once again that is nothing more then your opinion.

I could not care less if you are impressed or not as that was not my intent and more importantly I don't really care about the opinion of CTers. As to the increase in the use of SOF that has more to do with the type of war we are currently in then anything else. Large conventional forces have proven over and over again to be less then successful at dealing with these types of threats so why exactly would you not think the expanded use of a force that is more capable of dealing with that threat wouldn't make sense. It has nothing to do with illegal actions or anything else you dream up in your CT fairytale land.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

Just wondering, what does 'SOF' mean when you use it here? The only time I've seen it used before it stood for 'soldier of fortune'.

Click to expand...

braindrain said:

It stands for Special Operations Forces. Within the US military it is the catch all term for all the non conventional military units. Everything from SEALs, and Special Forces to Civil Affairs and PSYOPS. Everything that falls under SOCOM.

Click to expand...

JANFU said:

Canadian sniper makes history by killing ISIL insurgent from more than 3.5 kilometres away | National Post


3450 Meters=3772.966 yards
3772.966 yards =2.1437306818 miles
What a shot.

Click to expand...

Peter King said:

Awesome achievement, a very competent and talented shooter to shoot someone so far away. Snipers at times are a very good support for troops searching a hostile city/town/village. They can prevent solders falling in a trap or being trapped under fire.

Click to expand...