Nope, politicians are not military targets. And that makes sense. Nobody would ever talk and try to settle things diplomatically if they could be legally assassinated while doing so.

Also, you can't have a Nuremberg-style trial with the responsible people if you kill them. The military are following orders and doing what they are told (well, hopefully). The politicians are the ones with the highest responsibility for an invading army. An army serving the state won't invade unless politicians tell them to.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

I'm sure the fact that politicians tend to come from wealthy backgrounds has no factor whatsoever...

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

What about Putin, who's not a politician but a dictator warlord?

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 3 points 11 hours ago

All I'm hearing is "Yes, in fact it's one of the most important ones!"

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

No I would not consider it a military target, a top military building HQ could be considered a target but I would think the international community would deem the literal capital of the country a non-military target.