3 ms·
The idea here is that they are declared enemy combatants in a war (very plausible for Al-Qaeda, quite less here). In a war bombing a boat filled with combatant
by breppp 1y ago
The idea here is that they are declared enemy combatants in a war (very plausible for Al-Qaeda, quite less here).
In a war bombing a boat filled with combatants or members of an armed force is legal and does not amount to murder. While in the same war capturing the same boat filled with enemy combatants and executing them is illegal.
So I don't think your example holds, and that distinction is probably the basis for drone assassinations
- vkou 1y agoIn what universe are (alleged, no proof provided) smugglers enemy combatants? In one where anyone is? You can squint and claim that a wedding that has one person who spends his Saturdays and Sundays playing partisan in the hills is full of enemy combatants (obviously all men and boys above the age of 12, don't think too hard about what that means for your kid's next track meet), but justifying this is utterly beyond the pale. This is a war crime if there's a war, and murder if there isn't. This government corrupts anyone it touches, so this is fully in its playbook - make it's subordinates choose between following their conscience and resigning, or being complicit in its crimes.
- pstuart 1y agoThere's no war in this situation. The War on Terror™ and the War on Drugs™ are jingoistic phrases that are not actionable declarations of war. These attacks are theater to distract us from other failures, like the ability to the federal government running again. And the Epstein Files too, it's likely that is the driver for this.