Comment by zug_zug

No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases.

I think it is a valid military strike if a Venezuelan soldier does it on an order. Military targets where a strike are in danger of killing civilians are a hard judgment call. Generally one should never risk targeting civilians. Military law is a complex subject and officers spend quite a lot of time being educated in it. Here is a Swedish defence college course on it. https://www.fhs.se/en/swedish-defence-university/courses/int...

> Suppose a venezuelan living in America just looks up a bunch of US generals addresses online, and then sets all their houses on fire killing them in their sleep in their McMansions in suburbia.

I don't think the analogy is apt. Members of Hezbollah do not occupy a positions of similar relationship to Lebanon as US generals does to the US. As far as I've heard, flag officers and others are escorted by personal security for an attack of any sort, such as the 2009 Ft Hood shooting. [0]

Moving past that, a civilian citizen of Venezuela in the US who performed actions against US military targets would not be a valid military strike since that person would not be an identifiable member or Venezuela's military. It would more akin to a spy or assassin. Below is an excerpt from an article representing a US-centric view of history [1].

  But the right to kill one’s enemy during war was not considered wholly 
  unregulated. During the 16th century, Balthazar Ayala agreed with Saint 
  Augustine’s contention that it “is indifferent from the standpoint of justice 
  whether trickery be used” in killing the enemy, but then distinguished 
  trickery from “fraud and snares” (The Law and Duties of War and Military 
  Discipline). Similarly, Alberico Gentili, writing in the next century, found 
  treachery “so contrary to the law of God and of Nature, that although I may 
  kill a man, I may not do so by treachery.” He warned that treacherous killing 
  would invite reprisal (Three Books on the Law of War). And Hugo Grotius 
  likewise explained that “a distinction must be made between assassins who 
  violate an express or tacit obligation of good faith, as subjects resorting 
  to violence against a king, vassals against a lord, soldiers against him whom 
  they serve, those also who have been received as suppliants or strangers or 
  deserters, against those who have received them; and such as are held by no 
  bond of good faith” (On the Law of War and Peace).
  

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

1. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/

Edit: /Hamas/Hezbollah/

I'm pretty sure even that is allowed, yes.

Obviously he must wear a uniform while actually conducting the attack though.

Are you implying military personnel aren't a legitimate target in a war?

I'd understand if you were arguing against using excessive force, eg using thermobaric weapons in residential neighborhoods against an individual target, but there hardly exists a more targeted method than the pager attack / arson of specific houses.

That would be fine, it's war, and Venzeula would have to deal with the consequences also

That's a valid military strike, period.

>The Geneva Convention ought to have something to say about how a general may and may not be attacked.

Except nobody in power actually gives a damn about the Geneva convention or the "laws of war" being thrown around in this topic.

Those laws were made up so that victorious powers can bully smaller countries when they lose a war, but superpower nations themselves don't have to abide by them because there's nobody more powerful than them to hold them accountable when they break those rules. Because laws aren't real, it's only the enforcement that is real.

Like the US also doesn't care about the Geneva Convention with all its warmongering and crimes against humanity in the middle east, and the torturing in Guantanamo Bay, and the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair will never see a day at the ICJ. Hell, not even US marines accused of using civilians for target practices in Afghanistan got to see a day at the Hague because the US said they'd invade the Hague if that happened. Russia also doesn't care about the Geneva convention and Putin won't see a day at the Hague. Israel doesn't give a crap about the geneva convention when bombing Palestinian hospitals, and Netanyahu won't see a day at the Hague. And if China invaded Taiwan, they won't care about the Geneva convention and Xi Jinping will never see the Hague. Trump can invade Venezuela tomorrow, and same, nothing will happen to him or the US.

THAT IS THE REALITY, that is how the world really works, dominance by the strong, subservience of the weak, everything else about laws, fairness, morality, etc only works in Tolkien tales and internet arguments, not in major international conflicts.

Edit: to the downvoters, could you also explain what part of what I said was wrong?

While I'm only adding to the choir of people telling you "of course," since I'm directly the person you're responding to it still feels worth saying: yes, of course, if America and Venezuela went to war, it's completely legal for Venezuela to attempt to kill the U.S. President.

As an American, I certainly hope they would fail. But do I think it's legal? Yes: it's a targeted strike on the leader of an enemy country they'd theoretically be at war with. Do I think it's wise? Well — no, Venezuela has a much smaller military, and assassinating the U.S. President would trigger a massive war that would devastate Venezuela for decades while modestly inconveniencing American taxpayers. But legal? Yes.

They could do that now and it might be legal under international laws of war.

We've massed forces for an attack, attacked their ships, violated their airspace with combat aircraft (that's today), and extensively and publicly threatened them. They'd be in their legal rights to strike preemptively, including possibly a decapitation strike (this is why the Dubya administration kept repeating the term "preemptive strike", even though it was obviously nowhere near applying in the case of Iraq—it was a way of asserting its legal basis)

[edit] As thereisnospork points out in a sibling comment, however, this doesn't mean it'd be a good idea.

If US and Venezuela are in a state of war, then the head of the US Armed Forces is a legitimate target.

Not sure why you have doubts about this.

The US and Israel do the equivalent of that and have been for years. An assassination is an assassination. The weapon makes little difference.

I mean of course they could, and should[0] how is that a question?

[0] Shouldn't - classic example of a tactical win being a strategic blunder. Killing the American president and would solidify American public support for the war - which would probably be undesirable in the balance.