4 ms·
This is a very serious charge. Whether it's with drones, artillery, rifles, or bare hands doesn't matter. If they have solid evidence of the military intentio
by Dove 14y ago
This is a very serious charge. Whether it's with drones, artillery, rifles, or bare hands doesn't matter. If they have solid evidence of the military intentionally (or recklessly) targeting civilian first-responders, I'd think they should be looking to have charges filed against the individuals responsible.
- nkurz 14y agoYou are correct that they should charged if they were to target a civilian, but you are neglecting the definition of “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”. Once that male first responder is in the US-determined strike zone (ie, his country of birth) he is a combatant -- and hence an justified target ---until proven otherwise, which can only be after he is dead. By this definition, there is legally no such thing as a living male adult civilian first responder. Sadly, the US doesn't even deny that they make follow-up strikes: 'We don’t discuss classified programs or comment on alleged strikes.' Anyway, who else would attempt to aid a wounded combatant (male funeral goer) other than another combatant (grieving male relative)? http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror...