That paragraph literally means nothing. Word soup. Which “LOAC construct” specifically are you suggesting people use ?
Smoking armed sicarios engaged with the public and government forces is fine. You keep introducing things to the conversation without linking it to what you’re trying to say,
How does the LOAC keep us from smoking armed hitmen in the streets engaged with government forces?
You may have misread me? I’m not saying LOAC would stop them from getting the job done. Very much to the contrary, I’m saying that the narco insurgency in Mexico is widespread and violent enough that it transcends purely law enforcement approaches. It threatens territorial and governmental sovereignty, and military control of territory. It’s as much a military fight as a law enforcement one, and it’s recognized by many as a “non-international armed conflict”. That’s legally significant, and means that international law regarding LOAC applies.
A military threat can be engaged as a military threat, and struck with the intent of destroying it. Obviously that’s different from what police would generally be trying to achieve. In Mexico’s context, the military approach is likely going to be more effective and useful against some targets. If they want to degrade some of the cartels, and if military force is justified (which I firmly believe it is), it may simply work a lot better than conventional policing.
The reason LOAC entered into this at all was because I made a comment about killing Sicarios, and Halifax Tar asked me about “schwacking sicarios indiscriminately”. I immediately knew where he was going with that, and I brought up LOAC to say ‘no, not indiscriminately’, and to clarify the rule set I believe does apply. That’s the military one: Law of armed conflict to fight an armed conflict.
I think we’re all very agreed on wanting to see these bastards taken out. Just some differences of opinion on the precise rule set.