They’ve been doing ok in terms of what gets admitted in the official counts, but then those deliberately omit bystander men. And of course there are all sorts of stories like this. I think your opinion is based on seriously neglecting just how much damage happens, because you’ve decided it’s all just war:
But that’s why expanding war to mean any place the US feels it has a potential enemy, without need for any special declaration, review, or even deployment of troops, means essentially denying the possibility of such rights. For someone nitpicking what we call the different forms of killing people, you’re sure being lax in what you allow as a war and battlefield. If other rights are to depend on them, they’d better not be vague.
And the change here has been more explicit anyway. When they did a drone strike on an American citizen, Obama’s administration didn’t argue he wasn’t entitled to due process, but that an executive decision behind closed doors satisfies that right. I’m sure you see the failure in terminology there.
Edit: and, by the way, here is more terminology for you: the US firebombings of Japan and Germany were never ruled as such, but probably fall under the definition of war crimes. The only possible exception would be if they were justified by the gravest need; holding them up as a model for the present is essentially giving up on rights entirely.
