You neatly dissect the weird illogical pretzel CPJ came out with to try to cover their ass. They seem to have based it on the classic defense "My dog didn't bite you, my dog is nice and doesn't bite, and I don't have a dog." (And, like a dog hiding behind a tree, something's still poking out.)
When I saw the martyr notices for these terrorists, at Honest Reporting and elsewhere (most cutting, IMO, was Times of Israel's split-screen photos of civilian/terrorist garb) I assumed it would either be ignored, or the lists quietly adjusted. But this...remove a few, then publicly double down on/deny the rest--a familiar pattern, but still revolting.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the perverse ways Law of Armed Conflict/International Humanitarian Law gets interpreted here.
Is a terrorist really only a legitimate target at the exact moment they put their pen down and pick up a sword? Is this some deadly game of red-light/green-light? It sounds like hijinks in a Warner Bros cartoon, or Buster Keaton trying to avoid being caught out-of-doors in "Our Hospitality." Only, there's nothing funny about what these terrorists were doing.
I wondered, if JD Vance's trailer had been hit while he was a military journalist, would he have been listed by the CPJ? Oh, but wait, military journalists are combatants and not protected this way, according to an ICRC handout (via Google). So, terrorists are militants, except when that might make them subject to military rules of war, at which moment they become civilians? Ugh.
You neatly dissect the weird illogical pretzel CPJ came out with to try to cover their ass. They seem to have based it on the classic defense "My dog didn't bite you, my dog is nice and doesn't bite, and I don't have a dog." (And, like a dog hiding behind a tree, something's still poking out.)
When I saw the martyr notices for these terrorists, at Honest Reporting and elsewhere (most cutting, IMO, was Times of Israel's split-screen photos of civilian/terrorist garb) I assumed it would either be ignored, or the lists quietly adjusted. But this...remove a few, then publicly double down on/deny the rest--a familiar pattern, but still revolting.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the perverse ways Law of Armed Conflict/International Humanitarian Law gets interpreted here.
Is a terrorist really only a legitimate target at the exact moment they put their pen down and pick up a sword? Is this some deadly game of red-light/green-light? It sounds like hijinks in a Warner Bros cartoon, or Buster Keaton trying to avoid being caught out-of-doors in "Our Hospitality." Only, there's nothing funny about what these terrorists were doing.
I wondered, if JD Vance's trailer had been hit while he was a military journalist, would he have been listed by the CPJ? Oh, but wait, military journalists are combatants and not protected this way, according to an ICRC handout (via Google). So, terrorists are militants, except when that might make them subject to military rules of war, at which moment they become civilians? Ugh.
Yes! Every word of this. SUCH good points. I will share in an upcoming episode!