Mastodawn

White House throws commanding admiral under the bus in killing of alleged drug boat survivors

https://lemmy.world/post/39595553

White House throws commanding admiral under the bus in killing of alleged drug boat survivors - Lemmy.World

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the apparent war crime was legal even as she said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth knew nothing about it. The White House on Monday shifted the blame for killing the survivors of a U.S. military strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and onto the commanding admiral. Killing survivors of a destroyed vessel is literally an example of a war crime in the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual reads. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, nevertheless, repeatedly stated that it was legal – even as she further claimed, as Donald Trump did Sunday, that Hegseth was unaware that it had happened.

crumbletiltskin Dec 1

@MicroWave They always end up eating their own.. Always.

Perhaps this time they can eat themselves without causing a new world war?

And this is one of the many, many good reasons why one does not comply with illegal orders, damn it!

Ah, yes the most upstanding army that didn’t comply to illegal orders in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria et al.

The fuck you guys smoking?

That just underscores the point I made.

technocrit Dec 3

What point? That you live in an imaginary fantasy land?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

A proud American tradition

Fragging - Wikipedia

That makes me wonder what the highest level frag has been. I mean, not counting Caesar.

MinnesotaGoddam Dec 2

Seems it’s Caesar then.

If he ordered it, or complied with the order from above, lock him up. If not, this accusation is yet another confession.

Time to make this witness cooperative.

givesomefucks Dec 2

Killing survivors of a destroyed vessel is literally an example of a war crime in the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual reads.

RTFM

OrteilGenou Dec 2

I didn’t see anything about reading the fan mail…

Donjuanme Dec 2

That’s like my understanding of fubar, face unrecognizable, belay any response.

Thanks Dad.

If it’s any consolation, more than several professors ARE fubar

I’m confused—I thought that acronym was ‘fudged up beyond any repair’? I also don’t get ‘belay any response’. Does this mean to ‘remain unresponsive’? The confusion here being that belay means to halt essentially—so the word choice doesn’t make intuitive sense to me.

If this was all just a setup for the joke, apologies for the technicalities

Your understanding is the term, assuming you replaced “fucked” with “fudged”, is correct. The explanation given by the father was a lie too avoid teaching course words to a child.

I think it works as instructions on how to face Cthulhu. Or maybe explains deer reacting to headlights.

JohnnyFlapHoleSeed Dec 2

Ok… So common sense would read that as: ’ it wasn’t legal, it’s a prime example of a war crime, and Pete may not have explicitly approved of that action, but probably have a vague order like no survivors, which the admiral took literally, and so it’s entirely the admirals fault for not disobeying an unlawful order.

All I want for Christmas is a military coup, cold hard justice for the traitors enabling Trump, and emergency elections, monitored by the military, and un observers

Horsecook Dec 2

All I want for Christmas is a military coup

It’s too late for that. The entire point of this is to make sure everyone left in the military understands that they’ll be executed if the dictator falls.

MisterOwl Dec 2

When.

Horsecook Dec 2

Dictatorships can last for more than a lifetime. There’s no guarantee those complicit in its formation won’t die of old age before it falls.

Trump’s almost certainly going to die of old age before any meaningful amount of Democrats realize that pacifism is not a virtue, that there’s no nobility in victimhood. The question to ponder now is who Trump’s successor will be, and if they’ll be able to keep power without the cult of personality.

UnspecificGravity Dec 2

Ordering that operations be conducted on the basis that there be “no survivors” is also specifically cited as an example of a war crime by the same manual: “Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter.”

Page 211 …defense.gov/…/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UP…

Archangel1313 Dec 2

As they should. But the fact that he chose to follow an obviously illegal order, doesn’t absolve the ones who gave that order. This should in no way, take the heat off Hegseth…or Trump himself.

HocEnimVeni Dec 2

Hmm, I wonder why Admiral Holsey decided to retire when he did. 🤔

BigMacHole Dec 2

It was LEGAL but ALSO Pete Hegseth DIDNT know about it AND we Fired someone Over it!

First of all, blowing up a boat like is illegal. Even if it was legal you’ll have to prove that the boat contained drugs, but you just blowed your evidences! The guys that survived the attack then would have no charges over them and would be set free. Probably these guys were innocent and the boat was not a drug boat, thus they killed them as a cover up

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 2

Technicality question. Doesn’t the sec def make the rules for the manual. Like he can just change them on a whim. And the manual isn’t law, congress didn’t vote on it right? So it might technically be legal under US law. Though I doubt the airhead knows anything about that. As for war crimes and such… the US has been killing whoever it wants for a long time now. But… throwing the admiral under the bus… that could have real consequences that I can’t wait to see.

UnspecificGravity Dec 2

The manual is the interpretation of the meaning of existing laws. Its not new law and changing the manual doesn’t change the law. And Hesgeth (nor Trump) have the authority to change those laws just because they want to.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 2

So I looked it up. The DoD owns the manual. They can change it if they want. And it is an interpretation of international law. So technically, what was done is legal per US law. International law is pretty sketchy. Since it lacks robust enforcement, it pretty much means nothing unless a world power decides it does. So she may technically be right on that one. But of course the question shouldn’t be if it was legal. It should be was it “right”. Which it most certainly was not.

UnspecificGravity Dec 2

Right, except the problem is that it creates a very easy argument under which everyone involved COULD be prosecuted. Probably not by THIS DOD, but we still have elections in America and this makes it easy for the next bunch.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 2

Perhaps the core problem is that the people expected to follow the rules get to make them too. That usually works out well.

UnspecificGravity Dec 3

Except they don’t. These are laws passed by Congress just like every other law.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 3

The manual is for interpretations of international law. Not US law. So no congress involved.

Yeah but they didn’t change it though, so it was forbidden under the current rules. Too late to change that.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 2

I am willing to bet that nothing in it rules out retroactive changes. It’s a manual, not the letter of law. And really, it is more of a guide.

And I am willing to bet that nothing in it allows it. Not sure how that would be relevant though?

You can’t be held to a standard that didn’t apply at the time of the incident, but the standard that did apply during the incident clearly forbade it. So it doesn’t matter even if they change it now, because judgement would have to be made in the context of the rules applicable at the time. Of course Trump could just pardon whoever gets found guilty…

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 3

You saying how it “should” be. But nothing stops them ftom changing the standard retroactively, which is relevant because it means change the standard now, and judge people’s actions based on the new standard. They can do that. They shouldn’t, but they can. And this guy certainly would if it was in his favor.

I doubt any court would agree to that line of reasoning if this ever goes to trial. The real problem is the administration is just openly ignoring the courts that don’t rule in their favour. And again, Trump has pardoning power for federal crimes.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 3

What courts? The UN courts? The manual covers international law interpretation.

Depends on the accused, in case of the general it would probably be a court martial. But for the Secretary of Defence I’m not sure, might be a civil court in that case. Either way I was talking about US courts deciding on this violation of international law. There never were international courts the US would obey.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 4

Well, you can sue for anything in civil court… But if they tried to sue the person, and not the gov, it would get tossed immediately. And the courts have established very narrow conditions to allow it if the act happened outside the US.

Oh I didn’t mean civil as opposed to criminal. I meant civil as opposed to martial.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 7

Only if hegseth and trump wanted him to. Which they don’t.

No you are still not following. I think if Hegseth was indicted it wouldn’t be by a court-martial, because the Secretary of Defense is technically a civilian elected to an office and not an enlisted member of the armed services.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 11

He didn’t break any US laws because the manual isn’t law, and the action happened outside the US. So I think all that can happen is he gets impeached by congress.

The manual is just giving an interpretation of the obligations arising from the Geneva convention, to which the US is a signatory and which it has ratified, so it actually is a law (the prohibition on killing helpless survivors, not the the Law of War manual). Also the action happened inside the US, since the action in question when talking about Hegseth is the alleged order to not leave any survivors.

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 12

It being law in the US is highly questionable. But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual. And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual. If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about. And if they could reasonably do so, they probably would have.

It being law in the US is highly questionable.

What? How so? Do you not know how international law works? The US legislature ratified it, which makes it a law in the US.

But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual.

What law do you think the “Law of War” manual is referring to? It’s the Geneva Convention.

And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual.

This is getting a bit silly. The manual is basically all former US administrations since the ratification of the Geneva Convention specifically stating that what the current US administration did is a war crime under it. Since at the time of the incident the Geneva Convention was applicable (as it still is now since the US didn’t withdraw from it) the people involved in the incident could be tried under it, possibly by the next administration.

If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about.

That is exactly what the post was about. What the hell are you talking about?

Modern_medicine_isnt Dec 13

I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. They will argue about what legal precedence applies and what doesn’t based on the origin of the “law”.

The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them. So no, saying someone went against the manual doesn’t mean they broke the Geneva convention.

Last, the international laws are not only the geneva convention. There were several updates. The US did not ratify ANY of the updates. So no, the geneva convention rules are not all law in the US.

You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.

I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. […]

The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them.

Oh yeah? Well the constitution seems to disagree with you (article VI):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.

Huh.

NotMyOldRedditName Dec 2

So we went from denial, to it happened but it wasn’t us…

ThePowerOfGeek Dec 2

I think we’re currently in the phase where it’s rapidly undulating between both takes.

Give it another week and it’ll devolve into “what firing on shipwrecked people? What are you talking about? Lalalala, I can’t hear you!”

NotMyOldRedditName Dec 2

When do we enter the phase that no boat was even destroyed that day?

Instigate Dec 2

The Narcissist’s Prayer:

That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. <— we are here And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

UnspecificGravity Dec 2

Oh look, exactly what Mark Kelly was talking about. Shit rolls down hill guys. Remember that when someone orders you to murder people.

Asfalttikyntaja Dec 2

I just followed the orders.

That Weird Vegan Dec 3

the beautiful part is that if they followed the orders, they get thrown under the bus. If they DIDN’T follow the orders, they get thrown under the bus. Can’t win.

I’d rather be illegally discharged and deal with that in court than proceed to murder people so my boss isn’t mad at me.

The top brass who aren’t full on MAGA, but didn’t leave now have clear proof that they are expendable and will be scapegoated to protect Trump and his croneys. Honestly showing their hand at this stage gives me a lot of hope that any coup won’t happen now and resistance will be strengthened from within. I smell leaks coming!

Lushed_Lungfish Dec 2

As a sailor, I find the whole shoddy affair most disgusting.

Yes in war (and this was by no means a war) we may seek to kill one another as enemies, but every sailor knows, it is the sea who is the ultimate enemy.

A human adrift at sea is a pitiful thing. To save them is to save ourselves.