3 ms·
> I am aware of the response early air strikes caused, but even then there were usually (always?) between countries that were at war. As long as there have bee
by mpyne 13y ago
> I am aware of the response early air strikes caused, but even then there were usually (always?) between countries that were at war.
As long as there have been states, there have been "non-state" actors that field real, no-shit militaries, with which to go to war.
The most famous example from history is the scourge of piracy on the high seas. You'll note that ships that would hoist the Jolly Roger would be treated with a military response, not a police one.
So, the legal framework for drone strikes against non-state belligerents is not nearly as nebulous as it's made out to be. In fact there's actually quite a bit of precedent within international law.
- lostlogin 13y agoI realise you just picked an example, but shooting at some guys in a ship with a Jolly Roger is quite different to operating in an area full of civilians via camera. Civilians are hard to tell apart from combatants (although the US seems particularly blind to civilian/combatant difference judging by leaked videos). I don't think you could argue that the US is operating within international laws. It's striking countries that can't stop the incursions and don't want them . The country only protests feebly, as the US props the governments up. This increases the level of resentment. The US drone strikes a few of its so-called enemies (very little info is released, so no one really knows who's killed), whilst bumping off a few civilians that got in the way. Its not hard to see the vicious cycle.