zlacker

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+(OP)
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+g9
Given this is happening within the US I think it's valid to apply 'made up US law' against itself?

>>bloak+g9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

>>analog+(OP)
As you note, police are not subject to the laws of war -- they routinely use devices (pepper spray, tear gas, hollow-point bullets) that would be war crimes were they to be used in an armed conflict.

This is not problematic on the face of it -- police are expected to use non-lethal tactics whenever possible, and the laws of war are hugely biased towards killing rather injuring because overwhelming your opponent with casualties is considered inhumane in war.

>>analog+(OP)
They’re not combatants at all. Totally inapplicable to the discussion and absolutely the wrong way to look at this anyway.