4 ms·
generally this is correct, but this kinda misses the point as to why terrorists are treated as they are. Not saying it is correct, but usually when they are ov
by mr_00ff00 3y ago
generally this is correct, but this kinda misses the point as to why terrorists are treated as they are.
Not saying it is correct, but usually when they are overseas they are treated as enemy combatants (not to mention, if they aren’t US citizens then US rights don’t technically apply).
You wouldn’t hold your fire in a battle because you need to have a judge determine whether an enemy army is guilty. That’s sort of the idea with foreign terrorist organizations.
- bell-cot 3y ago> ...hold your fire in a battle... Admitting that the modern Laws of War are too-often broken, or twisted far beyond their intent...but shooting at a uniformed enemy soldier, during an actual battle, while making reasonable efforts to avoid hitting civilians, Medics, etc. - that is a very narrow set of criteria. 99.999% of humanity is neither on nor near that battlefield, to plausibly be targeted, nor be victims of errors and shell fragments. Vs. "use live ammo" against ransomware crooks? That sounds like a recipe for yet more "a week after our missiles obliterated his house, we realized that the real ransomware crooks had been using his hacked old cablemodem as an extra relay" lethal screw-ups.
- mr_00ff00 3y agoI wasn’t advocating for using this against ransomware hackers. Just that the idea that it’s not so black and white about terrorists and rights like innocent until proven guilty.