zlacker

>>Kapura+(OP)
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should be opposed to, no matter their political camp.

If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.

>>Pfhrea+7u
I think the principle is pretty broadly recognized. As I understand it, international law would treat them as unlawful combatants. Use of irregular troops against a civilian population falls pretty much smack dab into the middle of what most people recognize as terrorism.

The only problem is that international law doesn't govern how a country conducts activities on their own people. But it reflects a widespread consensus nonetheless.

Note: I'm not accusing the police of terrorism -- that would be pretty massively inflammatory and not my intent -- but simply giving examples to support a widespread discomfort with using non-uniformed forces.

>>analog+FN
I thought the whole point about "unlawful combatants" is that the concept does not exist in international law. It's just something that the US government made up as a bad excuse for ignoring international law.

>>bloak+VW
Given this is happening within the US I think it's valid to apply 'made up US law' against itself?