AP sees nothing

[Vonz90]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... recton.php

I am wondering if they can be declared to be combatants?

[blackeagle603]

Seems like some good intel on targeting... Got a two-fer. All enemies of truth, liberty and Israel.

[Jered]

To paraphrase a journalist, it's not as though property destruction is violence.

[MiddleAgedKen]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... recton.php

I am wondering if they can be declared to be combatants?

In the Carreraverse, absolutely.

[randy]

I am wondering if they can be declared to be combatants?

My understanding of International Law from when I was a Targeting Officer (you know, like when it was part of my actual job to make these determinations); if any of the AP Pukes had been killed in the attack, the legal blame lays with Hamas for putting their military targets in that building and allowing the AP to stay, not with the IDF.

It's like putting an SAM or AAA piece on top of a hospital. Now matter how many red crosses/crescents you mark the building with, putting that equipment there makes it a legitimate target and any civilian casualties fall on the folks that put the guns there.

You are required to minimize risk to non-combatants, not eliminate/avoid it entirely. You must balance military necessity with the risk to non-combatants, but you are not required to take casualties or give away a military advantage to the side that puts non-combatants at risk by placing legitimate military objectives in and around civilian populations/facilities.

So, in this case , it would have been perfectly legal under international law to blow away that building without giving advanced notice and taking out the "journalists" in the building.

Now, it might not have been smart for a number of reasons, but it would have been legal.

Of course international law and civilized rules of conduct only apply to the US and IDF. Marxists and Islamo-facists are free to do whatever they want without even a slap on the wrist. (Although, as has been demonstrated recently by the IDF, they might experience a little more than a stern talking to from a Euro-judge under the right circumstances).

[randy]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... recton.php

I am wondering if they can be declared to be combatants?

In the Carreraverse, absolutely.

Col. Kratman used the strict reading of international law as it is written, not as portrayed by Hollywood script writers and "understood" by politicians and journalists (or even by all too many lawyers, including JAGs who put wishful thinking above the letter of the law, and their duties under it).

I loved to tweak folks back in the early days of Gitmo etc. "The need to be treated in accordance with International Law!"

Let's see, these guys were not under a formal chain of command that can be held accountable for their actions, and fought without uniforms or other recognizable way of determining that they were legitimate combatants. So that means we can hold a court martial this morning, determine they are unlawful combatants, and shoot them this afternoon. Cool!

Reactions from some of those folks was rather entertaining.

[Vonz90]

I am wondering if they can be declared to be combatants?

My understanding of International Law from when I was a Targeting Officer (you know, like when it was part of my actual job to make these determinations); if any of the AP Pukes had been killed in the attack, the legal blame lays with Hamas for putting their military targets in that building and allowing the AP to stay, not with the IDF.

It's like putting an SAM or AAA piece on top of a hospital. Now matter how many red crosses/crescents you mark the building with, putting that equipment there makes it a legitimate target and any civilian casualties fall on the folks that put the guns there.

You are required to minimize risk to non-combatants, not eliminate/avoid it entirely. You must balance military necessity with the risk to non-combatants, but you are not required to take casualties or give away a military advantage to the side that puts non-combatants at risk by placing legitimate military objectives in and around civilian populations/facilities.

So, in this case , it would have been perfectly legal under international law to blow away that building without giving advanced notice and taking out the "journalists" in the building.

Now, it might not have been smart for a number of reasons, but it would have been legal.

Of course international law and civilized rules of conduct only apply to the US and IDF. Marxists and Islamo-facists are free to do whatever they want without even a slap on the wrist. (Although, as has been demonstrated recently by the IDF, they might experience a little more than a stern talking to from a Euro-judge under the right circumstances).

I agree with your take on targeting the building, it is illegal to hide behind non-combatants, not to target those hiding behind them (probably not as much as you but I did a similar role for a short time with CFG-3 back in the day).

My question is a bit more expansive than that though. If AP is collecting and distributing information on the direction of Hamas, that makes them an intelligence assets and that would make them combatants even if unarmed (and non-lawful combatants at that since they are not wearing uniforms). That would make targeting them legal as a matter of course.

That does not make it smart to target them, but I think it would be within the letter and spirit of the laws of armed conflict.

[blackeagle603]

Eight Warning Signs You Might Be Sharing Office Space With Terrorists

[blackeagle603]

Luke Skywalker Condemned For Blowing Up Associated Press Office Located On Death Star

[Vonz90]

https://babylonbee.com/news/eight-warni ... terrorists