And the problem I think, is what happens when the government gets their way and considers homegrown "terrorist" (which are often mentally ill people who have been strung along) as enemy combatants.
No, the US does not generally consider a homegrown terrorist a "lawful combatant," but the legal status of an "unlawful combatant" for a US citizen is legally complex and debated. Instead, homegrown terrorists are typically viewed as criminals who violate US law, and are prosecuted in civilian courts. The debate centers on the US government's past attempts to define certain terrorists as "unlawful enemy combatants," a designation that has been challenged in court, particularly for US citizens apprehended on US soil.
:shrugs:
Be easier to drone strike people like luigi for sure.
Geneva Conventions don't only apply between signatories- Common Article 3 applies to everyone, universally, no signature required.
Common Article 3 also applies do your own citizens but only in civil wars, rebellions, etc- it has to be sustained combat not gangs, lone terror attacks etc.
And the problem I think, is what happens when the government gets their way and considers homegrown "terrorist" (which are often mentally ill people who have been strung along) as enemy combatants.
:shrugs:
Be easier to drone strike people like luigi for sure.
Not how that works. The Geneva Conventions apply between signatories.
They do not ban or govern anything you do to your own citizens.
Geneva Conventions don't only apply between signatories- Common Article 3 applies to everyone, universally, no signature required.
Common Article 3 also applies do your own citizens but only in civil wars, rebellions, etc- it has to be sustained combat not gangs, lone terror attacks etc.