First of all, I never said Hezbollah are terrorists.
More important, this is about legality not morality. Governments adhere to the laws of armed conflict not out morality, but because they want their enemies to adhere to them. International law is always transactional.
So if a government doesn't adhere to the laws of armed conflict, then its enemies won't adhere to them either. That's pretty much the only enforcement mechanism, by the way.
In all of those fringe cases, 12 people thought the person was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And beyond any reasonable doubt basically means 100% certainty (ie any doubt is unreasonable).
People who think it's ok to execute someone when guilt is "100% certain" are the people who designed the current system.
Does launching rockets at Israel violate international law?
Did the kids killed by rockets in a soccer field pose an imminent lethal threat?
I think you can. For example, I am 100% sure that Ethan Crumbley shot his classmates. (That doesn't mean I think he should be executed though).
If they get one "unimportant" fact wrong, then why should I trust the "important" facts?
"Harris has a consistent platform and refuses to flip-flop the second time she is asked about it"
If none of the facts need to be correct except that police pointed a gun at someone's head, why read the other 2000+ words in the article?
We passed a historic climate bill and nobody cared. When nobody cares, politicians focus their energy on something else.
@FlowVoid
@lemmy.world