General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty? [View all]JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You are confusing the manner in which criminal judicial decisions are made with how decisions are made during a military engagement.
The military does not attack individuals or groups because they are "guilty" of some crime, they attack them because those
individuals or groups are believed to be a military enemy.
And so, during WWII, spotters would routinely call in airstrikes or mortar rounds on positions in which they believed the enemy to be. They did not first check to determine if those they believed to be enemy soldiers were "guilty" of anything.
Similarly, the ambush has been a well known tactic during military engagements. With that tactic, you hide and kill your enemy before they get to fire a shot. Which means, that a soldier could be killed on his first day, without firing a single shot. In a sense, he'd be totally innocent. But he'd still be dead.
This guy was a self-admited leader of a military organization that has been deemed an ENEMY of the United States. And he was located in an area where our military could engage him. He does not need to be "found guilty" of some other crime.
In the history of war, soldiers have often surrendered, after which, their rights and protections change. This guy could have surrendered. He decided not to.