[ashtonkem]

Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”.

More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.

[starik36]

All the evidence of Russian collusion and hacking is almost always presented without any evidence whatsoever. Yet no one in the mainstream media thinks to question it.

[pythonlion]

countries do hit jobs rarely and when they do its clear this person was involved 100% of the time. That's the only case people get killed in the name of “counter terrorism”. the discussion was about banning an organization not a person.

[ashtonkem]

They claim that, yes. Then again the DOD also claimed that their final drone strike was on a valid combatant, later on they had to admit that it was just a worker being greeted by his children. Whoops (/s).

Obviously banning an organization is much lower stakes than killing or jailing someone, and we should adjust accordingly. Still, if Israel (or any other country really) is going to run around and say that an organization or person is connected to terrorism, they should pony up enough evidence commensurate with the actions they propose so that we can discuss the matter. The pressure for any state to conflate political and security threats is high, and public scrutiny is part of what provides a counter balance.

This is particularly important if a country is demanding that the international community writ large take action against a given person or organization. Should not the citizens of the countries being asked to participate have the opportunity to see some evidence and discuss the matter?