4 ms·
You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious arg
by berntb 10y ago
You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments.
If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them.
(Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
- ThomPete 10y agoI don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
- berntb 10y agoSo, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
- ThomPete 10y agoYou mean just like when 9/11 allowed for the idea of pre-emptive strikes to be legalized? Law specialist have no understanding of what is the right law, they have an understanding of how you can interpret the law. These are two very different things you don't need to be a law specialist to have an informed opinion about the definition of what constitutes war.