3 ms·

Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict. There are a bunch of rules (i.e. the geneva conventions) around who can and cannot be targeted in an armed conflict

Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict. There are a bunch of rules (i.e. the geneva conventions) around who can and cannot be targeted in an armed conflict, but innocent vs guilty is not how it works. Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. Guilty people being killed can sometimes be a violation of the rules. Innocent vs guiltly is the wrong metaphor for what makes a legal target.

lostlogin 1y ago
> Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. If anyone did this to the US, can you imagine the butt-hurt response?
- theoreticalmal 1y ago
  The majority of the West has implicitly or explicitly ceded their national defense and warfighting capabilities to the USA. The comparison between USA and “other countries” isn’t really valid, as the situations are vastly different
  - jampekka 1y ago
    What does that mean? That USA is somehow killing people all around the world as a puppet or Iceland or something?
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    US exceptionalism doesn’t make killing ok.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    The West isn't the world, though. China could start taking out random boats next week.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. Declaring a war stopped being a thing after world war 2. Not just for usa but for everyone. In modern times a decleration of war has no meaning in international law. It only has meaning in domestic law. I think the reason is that the UN charter makes it illegal to fight a war except in self-defense. In modern times declerations of war have generally been replaced with sending a notice to the un security council that you intend to use your right to self defense. I dont know about this particular situation but i think a lot of the time historically the US has followed that procedure.
aaronbrethorst 1y ago
Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict which this is not, so what's your point?
- zeroonetwothree 1y ago
  Seems like it’s turning into one
  - aaronbrethorst 1y ago
    sure does, but temporal considerations matter and the United States military has been killing people—at the President and SecDef's direction—in the Caribbean and Pacific for weeks, now, without even the slightest fig leaf of Congressional authorization. In other words, even if there's a formal declaration of war on Venezuela (which will never happen), that doesn't excuse the prior behavior.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      Declerations of war are irrelavent to if its an armed conflict (in general declerations of war are obsolete in international law. They might have meaning domestically but do not have meaning in international law). From what i understand there are two requirements - the violence has to be intense enough. I think we are there - the other side has to be an organized armed group capable of conducting warfare. This is the part that seems to be a stretch. The drug runners may be organized but are they really capable of conducting warfare? The quote i found from the red cross is: "Non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as "parties to the conflict", meaning that they possess organized armed forces. This means for example that these forces have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain military operations."
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        Mexico would say that drug gangs are capable of conducting something that at least looks like warfare.
mmooss 1y ago
It's not an armed conflict in any legal sense, according to everyone but partisans (that I've seen).
vincnetas 1y ago
Is USA at war though?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  In the modern sense, yes. We no longer declare wars explicitly, nor do we limit that decision to Congress. Trump's decision to attack these targets is consistent with every other conflict we've engaged in since before either of us were born... national security threats. Even if you believe the dope itself to be no great national security threat, that's just their payload today, maybe next time they'll smuggle in a nuke or whatever. Of all the things that people on the left might find objectionable about Trump, this should be at the very far bottom of the list.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    > Even if you believe the dope itself to be no great national security threat, that's just their payload today, maybe next time they'll smuggle in a nuke or whatever. You're saying it's fine that they're killed for something they could "maybe" do in the future? Without even seeing any evidence that they're doing what they're accused of today? Have there been instances in the past of drug smugglers moving into the nuclear warhead smuggling game?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >You're saying it's fine that they're killed for something they could "maybe" do in the future? Smuggling of any sort is a weapon with disastrous consequences. We wouldn't let the cartels have nukes, why would we want them to have "smuggling"? Yes, I'm fine with this. That they promise not to use it for really bad stuff for now wouldn't make a difference (and they're not even making that promise). >Without even seeing any evidence t I'm not interested in being the internet jury for this, no. >Have there been instances in the past of drug smugglers moving into the nuclear warhead smuggling game? Gee. That's something I really want to wait until after they commit the offense before we do something about it. You've changed my mind with your top-notch debate strategy.
jampekka 1y ago
In general only combatants are allowed to be targeted. (Alleged) drug trafficking is not combatting. But in this case the point is a bit moot anyway as laws of war apply only to losers.
- bawolff 1y ago
  It kind of seems like a stretch in this case, but in principle those two things can overlap. For example Mexico's fight with drug cartels is widely considered to meet the definition of non international armed conflict.

lostlogin 1y ago

> Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. If anyone did this to the US, can you imagine the butt-hurt response?

theoreticalmal 1y ago
The majority of the West has implicitly or explicitly ceded their national defense and warfighting capabilities to the USA. The comparison between USA and “other countries” isn’t really valid, as the situations are vastly different
- jampekka 1y ago
  What does that mean? That USA is somehow killing people all around the world as a puppet or Iceland or something?
- lostlogin 1y ago
  US exceptionalism doesn’t make killing ok.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  The West isn't the world, though. China could start taking out random boats next week.
bawolff 1y ago
> The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. Declaring a war stopped being a thing after world war 2. Not just for usa but for everyone. In modern times a decleration of war has no meaning in international law. It only has meaning in domestic law. I think the reason is that the UN charter makes it illegal to fight a war except in self-defense. In modern times declerations of war have generally been replaced with sending a notice to the un security council that you intend to use your right to self defense. I dont know about this particular situation but i think a lot of the time historically the US has followed that procedure.

aaronbrethorst 1y ago

Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict which this is not, so what's your point?

zeroonetwothree 1y ago
Seems like it’s turning into one
- aaronbrethorst 1y ago
  sure does, but temporal considerations matter and the United States military has been killing people—at the President and SecDef's direction—in the Caribbean and Pacific for weeks, now, without even the slightest fig leaf of Congressional authorization. In other words, even if there's a formal declaration of war on Venezuela (which will never happen), that doesn't excuse the prior behavior.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    Declerations of war are irrelavent to if its an armed conflict (in general declerations of war are obsolete in international law. They might have meaning domestically but do not have meaning in international law). From what i understand there are two requirements - the violence has to be intense enough. I think we are there - the other side has to be an organized armed group capable of conducting warfare. This is the part that seems to be a stretch. The drug runners may be organized but are they really capable of conducting warfare? The quote i found from the red cross is: "Non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as "parties to the conflict", meaning that they possess organized armed forces. This means for example that these forces have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain military operations."
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      Mexico would say that drug gangs are capable of conducting something that at least looks like warfare.

mmooss 1y ago

It's not an armed conflict in any legal sense, according to everyone but partisans (that I've seen).

vincnetas 1y ago

Is USA at war though?

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
In the modern sense, yes. We no longer declare wars explicitly, nor do we limit that decision to Congress. Trump's decision to attack these targets is consistent with every other conflict we've engaged in since before either of us were born... national security threats. Even if you believe the dope itself to be no great national security threat, that's just their payload today, maybe next time they'll smuggle in a nuke or whatever. Of all the things that people on the left might find objectionable about Trump, this should be at the very far bottom of the list.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  > Even if you believe the dope itself to be no great national security threat, that's just their payload today, maybe next time they'll smuggle in a nuke or whatever. You're saying it's fine that they're killed for something they could "maybe" do in the future? Without even seeing any evidence that they're doing what they're accused of today? Have there been instances in the past of drug smugglers moving into the nuclear warhead smuggling game?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >You're saying it's fine that they're killed for something they could "maybe" do in the future? Smuggling of any sort is a weapon with disastrous consequences. We wouldn't let the cartels have nukes, why would we want them to have "smuggling"? Yes, I'm fine with this. That they promise not to use it for really bad stuff for now wouldn't make a difference (and they're not even making that promise). >Without even seeing any evidence t I'm not interested in being the internet jury for this, no. >Have there been instances in the past of drug smugglers moving into the nuclear warhead smuggling game? Gee. That's something I really want to wait until after they commit the offense before we do something about it. You've changed my mind with your top-notch debate strategy.

jampekka 1y ago

In general only combatants are allowed to be targeted. (Alleged) drug trafficking is not combatting. But in this case the point is a bit moot anyway as laws of war apply only to losers.

bawolff 1y ago
It kind of seems like a stretch in this case, but in principle those two things can overlap. For example Mexico's fight with drug cartels is widely considered to meet the definition of non international armed conflict.