> The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is generally not used in warfare. This isn't an American thing; it's long been part of the customary / traditional rules governing lawful conflict.
You don't get to just stop doing the right thing because a war started. Customs/traditions aren't an excuse for murder.
> To provide an easy to understand example why; you would not have to have a legal proceeding to determine that someone wearing a grey uniform with an iron cross on it was in fact a German soldier during WWI. Visual recognition, even from a distance (of the kind that would cause serious cross-examination in a domestic court), is sufficient to make the call that he is an enemy combatant.
Surely you can see how this is much clearer than people digging next to a road.
> It is worth noting that this Marine officer was acting under not just US rules of engagement, but also NATO ROEs. Those ROEs would have been vetted by the lawyers of all the NATO members, who already abide by some of the most historically rigorous applications of the laws of war.
And Nazis were "just taking orders". What's your point? Just because the authorities say it's okay to murder someone doesn't mean it's okay to murder someone.
> Regardless of whether you personally think that was moral or not, the fact is that it was legally permissible under internationally agreed upon laws of warfare.
And it shouldn't be.
Your defense of Kudo's actions is basically: "Law made by Western powers says that what Western powers do is okay, so it's okay!" Fuck that noise. This is just murder.
If you're killing someone, you'd better have a damn good reason, and you'd better be damn sure you're right. Kudo wasn't, but he killed those men anyway.