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.

▲

mmooss 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

jampekka 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

vincnetas 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is USA at war though?

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	AlecSchueler 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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?

▲

aaronbrethorst 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict

which this is not, so what's your point?

▲

zeroonetwothree 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Seems like it’s turning into one

	▲	aaronbrethorst 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

lostlogin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What does that mean? That USA is somehow killing people all around the world as a puppet or Iceland or something?
	▲	AlecSchueler 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The West isn't the world, though. China could start taking out random boats next week.
	▲	lostlogin 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		US exceptionalism doesn’t make killing ok.