Makes no difference. If torturing enemy combatants was acceptable, there would be no Geneva conventions. The moment they are captured and seize to actively take part in the conflict, they are protected from further harm.
So you believe that a single murder is just as evil as a genocide? That there is not a scale to evil?
That all crimes should result in the same sentence?
Because that is what you are arguing, that all evil is the same, and equally contemptible, with no shades of guilt or nuance.
I disagree, and I don't think you actually believe that either.
Nobody is arguing that it is more or less evil. The militant POW may face their own trials after the war, where a punishment is decided. But while they are a POW, they are unable to cause any damages. So they are also not allowed to be tortured.
You will find that the actual laws of the Geneva Conventions only protect signatories and those that agreed to abide by the rules, which Hamas and any terrorist organization by definition does not. Rather specifically does not.
But, as mentioned, irrelevant to the civilians in question as they are protected.
Random terrorists, though? Legally they can be shot and dumped in the nearest ditch.
Of course, legality is not morality.
Where did "single murder" and "genocide" come from anyway?
When they argued there isn't a difference between torturing random civilians for fun and humiliating (suspected) terrorists.
Lynch mobs are outlawed for a reason.
Ah, so that was just humiliation! I was not aware that that was what they were actually doing with the dogs and electric wires.
Makes no difference. If torturing enemy combatants was acceptable, there would be no Geneva conventions. The moment they are captured and seize to actively take part in the conflict, they are protected from further harm.
So you believe that a single murder is just as evil as a genocide? That there is not a scale to evil?
That all crimes should result in the same sentence?
Because that is what you are arguing, that all evil is the same, and equally contemptible, with no shades of guilt or nuance.
I disagree, and I don't think you actually believe that either.
Nobody is arguing that it is more or less evil. The militant POW may face their own trials after the war, where a punishment is decided. But while they are a POW, they are unable to cause any damages. So they are also not allowed to be tortured.
You will find that the actual laws of the Geneva Conventions only protect signatories and those that agreed to abide by the rules, which Hamas and any terrorist organization by definition does not. Rather specifically does not.
But, as mentioned, irrelevant to the civilians in question as they are protected.
Random terrorists, though? Legally they can be shot and dumped in the nearest ditch.
Of course, legality is not morality.
Where did "single murder" and "genocide" come from anyway?
When they argued there isn't a difference between torturing random civilians for fun and humiliating (suspected) terrorists.
Lynch mobs are outlawed for a reason.
Ah, so that was just humiliation! I was not aware that that was what they were actually doing with the dogs and electric wires.