• ubergeek@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    So, they are considered unlawful combatants? And therefore do not get the protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions, right?

    Right?

    • sudoshakes@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Talk about jumping 4 steps down the road.

      They are uniformed. No global convention or agreement mandates those elements be on a uniform. The nametag, unit patch, and other items on the uniform are just ways that force happens to enhance identification within the unit.

      They are identified as uniformed members of a military force. This satisfies the convention.

      None of this matters or applies at all given that there is no combat occurring that would fall under the Geneva convention. So they could be plain clothes officers and it wouldn’t apply.

      Trump is a sack of dog turds, and what he is doing is largely stupid speed run overreach, but this hyperbolic shit just harms credibility of the already massive list of shit he is violating.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          The top level comment says it’s not legal.

          The comment you replied to is saying that’s not true, and that hyperbole doesn’t help.

          Your comment says that legality is not morality.

          Settle down, take a deep breath, and think about what you’re saying.