Re:A Citizen Is Suing the US for Putting Him on the 'Kill List'
by candiodari on Thursday July 19, 2018 @11:33AM
(#17567254)
Pray tell. There is international law, and international law. There is NO international law. Law exists where you have clear laws, a clear and separate way to determine how it applies in situations, and a way to rectify situations afterwards, and an enforcement mechanism ... So thankfully none of that exists, all there is is some vague international documents nobody actually respects. Not the US, not Europe, and certainly no-one else.
For instance, one part of international law said that France and the UK (and several others) would declare war on Russia if Russia ever violated the territory of the Ukraine, which it did when it annexed Crimea ... [1]
Is it that "legal framework" you're talking about (international treaties) ? Why don't you complain that a new world war wasn't started, despite the "legal framework" (ie. international treaties) stating that we should to respond to Russia's provocation ?
Weird how people have such selective application of law and weird interpretations.
Interpretations ? Yes, by the way. Why don't you go through those human rights treaties, and verify these questions for me ?
1) if you take actions against a foreign state or military without wearing a uniform, what rights do you have ? None. You can be shot on sight, with collateral damage around you (no limits, so theoretically we could nuke terrorists), by a foreign force, on the territory of a different state than the one controlling the foreign force.
2) WHO makes the determination if you fall under that category from question 1) ? The "on the ground" commander of the force shooting you. This decision is final and cannot be contested by courts afterwards.
3) It does not matter why that force is there, whether they're invading, just visiting, protecting dignitaries, or in fact just entering that territory to eliminate terrorists.
Read through the human rights treaties (start here [2]) and point out where I'm wrong.
For instance, one part of international law said that France and the UK (and several others) would declare war on Russia if Russia ever violated the territory of the Ukraine, which it did when it annexed Crimea ... [1]
Is it that "legal framework" you're talking about (international treaties) ? Why don't you complain that a new world war wasn't started, despite the "legal framework" (ie. international treaties) stating that we should to respond to Russia's provocation ?
Weird how people have such selective application of law and weird interpretations.
Interpretations ? Yes, by the way. Why don't you go through those human rights treaties, and verify these questions for me ?
1) if you take actions against a foreign state or military without wearing a uniform, what rights do you have ? None. You can be shot on sight, with collateral damage around you (no limits, so theoretically we could nuke terrorists), by a foreign force, on the territory of a different state than the one controlling the foreign force.
2) WHO makes the determination if you fall under that category from question 1) ? The "on the ground" commander of the force shooting you. This decision is final and cannot be contested by courts afterwards.
3) It does not matter why that force is there, whether they're invading, just visiting, protecting dignitaries, or in fact just entering that territory to eliminate terrorists.
Read through the human rights treaties (start here [2]) and point out where I'm wrong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
[2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/