5 ms·

No, targeting opposing warfighters (the hackers are certainly such) is not a war crime, even if they attempt to hide among civilian populations. Nor is lying ab

No, targeting opposing warfighters (the hackers are certainly such) is not a war crime, even if they attempt to hide among civilian populations. Nor is lying about the specifics of your targeting.

free_bip 2y ago
I don't understand how a hacker that's targeting US infrastructure would be considered an "opposing warfighter" in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war?
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  You think his targets are limited to the US? A general doesn't have to be assigned to the front to be a valid target.
- selfmodruntime 2y ago
  They are an opposing warfighter in the Russia led global destabilization efforts.
vkou 2y ago
If bombing a hacker's house isn't a war crime, is a Russian missile hitting a mall in LA, because a colonel working in logistics took his kids shopping there also kosher, or..? I assume the triumphant press release would be something like 'a number of confirmed enemy fighters killed'. It's always interesting to see warhawks (who have never been the victims of war) do their best to expand the list of who they consider acceptable enemy targets are, with no regard to what this means to them, domestically.
- bluGill 2y ago
  If russia played nice with the world they would extradit this guy to the courts. Since russia won't all that is left is war.
  - vkou 2y ago
    So, you're telling me that the US refusing to extradite a national is, indeed, sufficient justification for another country to start bombing LA? Or is it one of those 'we make the rules, but we aren't bound by them' things?
    - ribosometronome 2y ago
      It seems pretty obvious that America is playing by the rule of "We have the power, so you're going to do what we say" when it comes to these scenarios. I find it hard to imagine, for example, an assassination on an American official of rank similar to Qasem Soleimani would result in nearly as timid of a response as Iran gave.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      The us generally will extradite if your justice system isn't corrupt. There are exceptions, but everyone has them.
      - vkou 2y ago
        Demonstrably false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... > The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". > This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
        throw10920 2y ago
        I don't see how your comment contradicts the statement "The us generally will extradite if your justice system isn't corrupt. There are exceptions, but everyone has them." The fact that there is a US law to prevent US service members specifically from being detained by the ICC specifically, has little bearing on the statement that "The US generally will extradite".
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  > Russian missile hitting a mall in LA, because a colonel working in logistics took his kids shopping there also kosher No, because it violates "Proportionality". In this definition, even the very anti-war ICRC admits that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians to achieve military objectives. https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-international-humanitarian-law https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-internat... - The law they cite is "expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". Where you draw the line is to be litigated. Is destroying the entire apartment block to get a single hacker justified? Probably not. A single-residence home, even if his wife and kids are there? If they're an important enough military target, for sure.

No, targeting opposing warfighters (the hackers are certainly such) is not a war crime, even if they attempt to hide among civilian populations. Nor is lying about the specifics of your targeting.

free_bip 2y ago

I don't understand how a hacker that's targeting US infrastructure would be considered an "opposing warfighter" in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war?

GauntletWizard 2y ago
You think his targets are limited to the US? A general doesn't have to be assigned to the front to be a valid target.
selfmodruntime 2y ago
They are an opposing warfighter in the Russia led global destabilization efforts.

vkou 2y ago

If bombing a hacker's house isn't a war crime, is a Russian missile hitting a mall in LA, because a colonel working in logistics took his kids shopping there also kosher, or..? I assume the triumphant press release would be something like 'a number of confirmed enemy fighters killed'. It's always interesting to see warhawks (who have never been the victims of war) do their best to expand the list of who they consider acceptable enemy targets are, with no regard to what this means to them, domestically.

bluGill 2y ago
If russia played nice with the world they would extradit this guy to the courts. Since russia won't all that is left is war.
- vkou 2y ago
  So, you're telling me that the US refusing to extradite a national is, indeed, sufficient justification for another country to start bombing LA? Or is it one of those 'we make the rules, but we aren't bound by them' things?
  - ribosometronome 2y ago
    It seems pretty obvious that America is playing by the rule of "We have the power, so you're going to do what we say" when it comes to these scenarios. I find it hard to imagine, for example, an assassination on an American official of rank similar to Qasem Soleimani would result in nearly as timid of a response as Iran gave.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    The us generally will extradite if your justice system isn't corrupt. There are exceptions, but everyone has them.
    - vkou 2y ago
      Demonstrably false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... > The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". > This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
      - throw10920 2y ago
        I don't see how your comment contradicts the statement "The us generally will extradite if your justice system isn't corrupt. There are exceptions, but everyone has them." The fact that there is a US law to prevent US service members specifically from being detained by the ICC specifically, has little bearing on the statement that "The US generally will extradite".
GauntletWizard 2y ago
> Russian missile hitting a mall in LA, because a colonel working in logistics took his kids shopping there also kosher No, because it violates "Proportionality". In this definition, even the very anti-war ICRC admits that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians to achieve military objectives. https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-international-humanitarian-law https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-internat... - The law they cite is "expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". Where you draw the line is to be litigated. Is destroying the entire apartment block to get a single hacker justified? Probably not. A single-residence home, even if his wife and kids are there? If they're an important enough military target, for sure.