2 ms·
A naive, and imo correct, response to this would be, "Has Congress declared war on the nation from which the attackers originated?" This assumes that the attack
by cco 8y ago
A naive, and imo correct, response to this would be, "Has Congress declared war on the nation from which the attackers originated?" This assumes that the attackers were state sponsored.
If the answer to that is no, then if I were in the position to make a decision, i.e. a judge, I would say, "Sorry insurance company, this wasn't an act of war, it happened a year ago and Congress didn't declare war because of this attack; pay up."
That doesn't answer the questions you raised, e.g. is the the peacetime killing of non-combatants illegal, but it answers the question in the article.
- Gpetrium 8y agoSo any attacks, including pearl harbor would fall outside the jurisdiction of 'war'. It would also mean that the U.S would likely never truly declare war via Congress since it would annul millions of insurances and would lead to insurance premiums going up to levels never seen before. Based on this really small sample, would you still follow that rationale?
- sk5t 8y agoGP already considered something like Pearl Harbor with a 1-year lag for war to be declared, later, in connection with the event.
- cco 8y ago>It would also mean that the U.S would likely never truly declare war via Congress since it would annul millions of insurances and would lead to insurance premiums going up to levels never seen before. How does this follow? If Congress declared war against Russia, that would mean that insurance companies could now refuse to pay out for any Russian "cyber attacks", that seems counter to what you just said? Maybe I'm misreading.