Jeh Johnson Quotes

… it was not necessary to make any definition of "aggressor" or "self-defense." I do not think it can be done, anyway, accurately. They have been trying to do it in Europe for six or eight years, and they never have been able to accurately define " aggressor " or " self-defense.

In my view, targeted lethal force is at its least controversial when it is on its strongest, most traditional legal foundation. The essential mission of the U.S. military is to capture or kill an enemy. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years. As part of a congressionally authorized armed conflict, the foundation is even stronger.

There is such a thing as legitimate warfare: war has its laws; there are things which may fairly be done, and things which may not be done.

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians ought, under all circumstances, to be illegal in war as in peacetime.

No matter how many people you kill, using a machine gun in battle is not a war crime because it does not cause unnecessary suffering; it simply performs its job horrifyingly well.

It is a rule of international law that weapons and methods of warfare which do not discriminate between combatants and civilians should never be used.

The difference between us and the terrorists is that when we kill innocent civilians, we do so by accident. When they kill innocent civilians, they do it deliberately.

According to the laws of war, a warring party can just walk away from civilian harm that they have caused.

We draw the sword with a clear conscious and clean hands! Our invasion of Belgium is contrary to International Law, but this wrong – I speak openly – that we are committing – that we are committing – we will make right as soon as our military objective has been attained.

If we can kill Saddam, we should.

The world must know that America holds to the highest standards of military conduct and human rights protections. Anything less is unacceptable.

The troops are therefore empowered and are in duty bound in this war to use without mitigation even against women and children any means that will lead to success.

I cannot grasp the difference between killing people with drones or rifles and knives. The objective in war is to kill the enemy before he kills you. I can't fathom the almost religious zeal with which the use of drones is being opposed.

Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen - even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaida in a foreign land - is among the gravest that government leaders can face.

This war no longer has anything to do with knightly conduct or with the agreements of the Geneva Convention.

If you shell a military base and happen to kill civilians, you have not committed a war crime; if you deliberately target cities and towns, you have.

What is and isn't justified by military necessity is, naturally, open to interpretation. One of the key concepts, though, is the law of proportionality. A military attack that results in civilian casualties - 'collateral damage' - is acceptable as long as the military benefits outweigh the price that is paid by humanity.

It's never acceptable to target civilians. It violates the Geneva Accords, it violates the international law of war and it violates all principles of morality.

The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians, but it was Christians in World War II who bombed innocent civilians in Dresden and dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.

Perhaps the most basic rule of the law of armed conflict is that civilians and civilian objects must not be made the object of direct attack, although incidental injuries caused to such persons or objects in the course of a legitimate attack must be proportionate to the purpose of the attack.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for our War on Terrorism.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.

The fight against the partisans must be carried out with all means at our disposal and with utmost severity. I will protect any commander who exceeds our usual restraint in the choice of methods in executing one's orders is better than failure or neglect to act.

Our calculus with the Drone Program is very simple. Kill them before they kill you!