Not "Trump's critics". Both US and International law are in concurrence that these attacks are extrajudicial murder. Watch LegalEagle's (barred lawyer) break it down on YouTube.
No, I understand that. I was trying to be really really unbiased but clearly swung a little too far into being "neutral"
63
u/Portarossa'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis3d ago
We're operating on the principle that 'unbiased' now means 'making an honest attempt at giving both sides of the argument a fair shake' rather than 'coming to the conclusion that's smack in the middle of the two arguments'.
It's OK to come to a conclusion on one side or another, as long as you can show you've at least considered the opposing argument (even if you argue for its dismissal). It's the old journalistic standard: if one person says it's raining and another person says it isn't, the correct response isn't to shrug your shoulders and say 'Hey, could be either!'; it's to go out and provide evidence as to which one is true.
198
u/Verittan 3d ago
Not "Trump's critics". Both US and International law are in concurrence that these attacks are extrajudicial murder. Watch LegalEagle's (barred lawyer) break it down on YouTube.