from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 29 Nov 00:49
https://lemmy.world/post/39461051
More than 80 people killed in campaign that law-of-war experts have labeled extrajudicial murder
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to leave no survivors behind as Donald Trump’s administration launched the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.
On September 2, U.S. military personnel fired a missile striking a vessel in the Caribbean that carried 11 people accused of trafficking drugs into the United States.
When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.
#world
threaded - newest
Won’t be the last time he issues that command
“Sir, what should we do this Martin Luther King day?”
If they didn’t kill everyone, it’s possible one of them would be able to prove there were no drugs and this is just racism…
It probably was drugs - but that is not the point. It’s wildly unethical and a violation of many rules of war to simply kill people like they are doing.
We don’t summarily execute people at the president’s say.
Akxually…
Yeah... no.
Sorry, I was using “parent telling a child ‘we don’t hit people’ voice”.
Seriously. Even domestically they aren’t allowed to just waltz into a drugden and open fire.
I mean, they still do but they are least have the claim that they fired in self defence. Not so much when you do it with drone strikes and missiles.
What do you think a war is? We already set the precedent of being able to declare war on non-state actors and the War Powers act gives him the authority to start shooting without Congressional approval. Which means an American President can legally, (to the US), tell the military they need to go kill cocaine farmers until Congress passes a bill to stop him. And the President can veto that bill. Meaning the legal threshold for Congress to stop the military from killing foreigners in foreign places is the same threshold as impeaching the President.
The War Powers resolution worked as long as it did because it was actually one of many gentleman’s agreements that are now defunct.
you actually do
The “I was just following orders” defense is gonna be used a loooot in the future
When? You expecting an election in the future?
That’s very cute of you to think that they will face consequences.
If anybody is still under the impression that someone somewhere in the chain of command might refuse illegal orders, this tells you everything you need to know
Unfortunately the US doesn’t consider that one to be an illegal order. It is heartless, and unnecessary. But ever since the advent of airpower the US has maintained that planes, helicopters, and drones are not required to accept surrender because it is impractical to impossible in any given situation. So the standard is usually to keep firing. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom had notable exceptions with mass surrender instructions dropped beforehand. And again, I know that’s not reassuring. But this is why politics isn’t supposed to be a team game. This is the level of power we are making decisions on. For other things that are completely legal but most people don’t realize; heavy machineguns can absolutely be used to target individual soldiers; Flamethrowers are still 100 percent legal against military targets; You can be shot after your surrender is accepted, (I’ll expand below); You will be shot if you do not or cannot actively surrender; and Nobody respects the rule against shooting medics and medevacs.
To expand on the most inflammatory one, the only time you are “safe” is while you are in custody. Modern combat operations move very fast and surrendering people are often left in place after their weapons are removed/destroyed. If they don’t actively surrender again to follow on forces then they are legal targets because we haven’t developed psychic powers yet. This especially matters with surrendered wounded who may not be in a condition to surrender again. Shooting bodies as you advance is legal and expected in a war. You just aren’t allowed to personally go back and shoot someone again without them presenting a new threat. With that information in mind you should also know the US military and any professional military sends multiple waves across a battlefield. It is incredibly lethal, by design.
I say all this not to call you out but to highlight that war is a giant bag of dicks that most people outside the military are still naïve about.
The other pressing thing here is this is an order to fire on a declared enemy, outside our border. Meaning the president signed a sheet of paper declaring them to be the enemy, Congress hasn’t thrown a flag, and they are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement. That is very clear cut to the military. If you change any one of those 3 parameters then things go to gray zone or illegal very quickly. Someone asked me some months ago while Trump was vomiting about Greenland if the military would obey that order versus an order to hunt down and kill Americans inside America. And the answer is Greenland would be fucked but those Americans are pretty safe from the military. They are not however safe from anonymous DOJ task forces and DHS.
What would even be an illegal order?
Blowing up the boat in the first place.
Thanks for the clarification, sadly
and they’ll do similar mental gymnastics forever…
the military won’t save you Americans
I’m a world where laws mattered those words would haunt him all the way to the gallows.
Does the Hague not investigate war crimes?
Only for political opponents of west.
The U.S. doesn’t recognize the ICC and sanctions its officials if they investigate war crimes by the U.S. or its allies.
We briefly ratified the Rome Statute in 2000 but pulled out shortly after invading Afghanistan and shortly before invading Iraq.