I'm sorry but it's not my job to interpret treaties written in English for you.
So in other words, you've been talking out of your ass and have no actual basis for making the claims you did.
No worries, that's a fairly common tactic around here.
What in the world is an "irregular combatant"?
I find it hard to believe that you (or anyone) would actually weigh in on this topic without knowing what that word means.
Read this:
Customary IHL - Rule 4. Definition of Armed Forces
The Red Cross explains it pretty well.
It's a pretty common term, sorta a catch-all for terms like insurgent, freedom fighter, guerrilla, revolutionary, and etc...
The "regular" military is is the official military of a state or country, and "irregular" forces are anyone else that carries out military-like missions.
You originally asked me to provide you with treaties. Did you change your mind?
:roll:
You have yet to demonstrate that droning irregular forces is "clearly a war crime".
YOU made the claim.
I questioned it.
You can either substantiate your claim or you can't.
At this point I'm inclined to believe that you can't.
No worries.
You asked me to provide you with treaties and that's what I did. Are you confused?
Yeah.
I'm confused over how you can make a pretty clear-cut claim and then have absolutely no earthly idea how to go about backing up that claim beyond linking to a general article on Wikipedia.
You see how you asked me above what "irregulars" were so I provided you with a fairly authoritative source describing the term and then explained it in my own words in case you can't be bothered to reference the source?
That's what I expect from you.
You use a term or make a claim and you stand behind it and substantiate your use of the term or the basis for the claim.
That's how educated adults have a conversation about controversial topics.
I'm confused that another adult wouldn't get that.
I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink it.
Thing is, you didn't actually lead anything anywhere.
What you did is tantamount to pointing in the general direction of the Atlantic Ocean and saying, "I don't really know exactly where the water is, but I kinda think it's over in that direction somewhere".
Lazy and sloppy is what you did.
And I understand now that you did it that way because you
think we're talking about a crime here, or you buy into the conventional wisdom that we must be talking about a crime, but you don't have enough knowledge of the topic or enough of an understanding to really explain why we're talking about a crime.
And there's no shame in that.
If you can't figure it out for yourself, I can't help you.
That's not true.
If you knew what you were talking about you could easily help me.
People who understand things teach other people, who are ignorant of that understanding, new things every day.
Bottom line is that you don't have a firm enough grasp on this to teach anything.
So you make drive-by comments and then refuse to stand behind them.
Is there something in the treaties you don't understand about the descriptions/definitions of war crimes?
Yes.
I don't understand how they CLEARLY point to the killing of irregular forces amounting to a war crime.
This is something that lawyers have been arguing about for the better part of the last decade, heck, probably for the better part of the last century in one form or another.
I've read papers written by Justice Department lawyers, Fordham University lawyers, Berkley Lawyers, The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, heck, all kinds of papers.
And if there is ANYTHING that can be said about this topic it is that it is ANYTHING but clear cut.
So what I don't understand is how you, some anonymous guy on the Internet, are so sure about this when pretty much the entire legal universe has failed to come to a consensus.