- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,958
- 4,187
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Nate Charles
Another log on the fire why those six Dems made the video reminding soldiers they do not have to follow illegal orders.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
‘No Quarter’ Declaration by Pete Hegseth ‘Constitutes a War Crime’
- Thread starter Say it aint so
- Start date
Another log on the fire why those six Dems made the video reminding soldiers they do not have to follow illegal orders.
Matt5
Well-Known Member
- Jun 12, 2019
- 1,151
- 475
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Come back when Pete Hegseth gives an actual order to shoot people who are trying to give up.
The whole concept of "war crimes" is an artificial construct used to hold the West down after WW2. The last time America won a war was when it nuked Japanese civilians.
Notice how the Russians don't care about war crimes in Ukraine. The Palestinians don't care. How many in the West cheer the Palestinians after their war crimes against Israel? The Iranians don't care about war crimes.
Because of war crimes, the West will never win another war again. I guess that's the goal.
The whole concept of "war crimes" is an artificial construct used to hold the West down after WW2. The last time America won a war was when it nuked Japanese civilians.
Notice how the Russians don't care about war crimes in Ukraine. The Palestinians don't care. How many in the West cheer the Palestinians after their war crimes against Israel? The Iranians don't care about war crimes.
Because of war crimes, the West will never win another war again. I guess that's the goal.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,521
- 50,901
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Always cheery to see posts in favor of war crimes.
Upvote
0
Oompa Loompa
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2020
- 11,598
- 5,515
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes. Just looking at th title of the thread, I can already confirm that this is a Democrat talking point ordered to the liberal media to parrot, so other liberals will just hear some talking head on a television screen just waiting for someone else to tell them what to think. So I highly recommend looking at the third amendment of the constitution before continuing the nonsense.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,521
- 50,901
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
"So I highly recommend looking at the third amendment of the constitution before continuing the nonsense."
Hahaha
en.wikipedia.org
Hahaha
No quarter - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,001
- 17,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
This is all fairly moot anyway considering that the US withdrew from the Rome Statute/ICC stuff back 2002.
Not only withdrew, but also went a step further
en.wikipedia.org
The act (singed into law in 2002) allows the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent American or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC.
While I would vociferously object to the notion of them executing combatants with their hands up actively surrendering (if that would happen to occur), citing some sort of international legal agreement that we're no longer a signatory to or participating in is, as I said, moot...
Not only withdrew, but also went a step further
American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia
The act (singed into law in 2002) allows the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent American or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC.
While I would vociferously object to the notion of them executing combatants with their hands up actively surrendering (if that would happen to occur), citing some sort of international legal agreement that we're no longer a signatory to or participating in is, as I said, moot...
Upvote
0
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,958
- 4,187
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Department of Defense Law of War ManualThis is all fairly moot anyway considering that the US withdrew from the Rome Statute/ICC stuff back 2002.
Not only withdrew, but also went a step further
American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia
The act (singed into law in 2002) allows the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent American or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC.
While I would vociferously object to the notion of them executing combatants with their hands up actively surrendering (if that would happen to occur), citing some sort of international legal agreement that we're no longer a signatory to or participating in is, as I said, moot...
5.4.7
Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given.
It is forbidden to declare. that no quarter will be given.145 This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed.146 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.
Upvote
0
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,958
- 4,187
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
It has been reported that has already happened. Which is why the video was made.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,001
- 17,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Then we can cross the bridge if he tries to issue such as a formal directive or order.
Otherwise, there's nothing to separate it from the contemporary usage (which means "push hard, don't give them an inch of breathing room")
For example:
For example, Jamie Raskin "gave the former president no quarter" didn't mean executing someone who was trying to surrender.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 10,587
- 11,371
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Other than the fact that it has a specific meaning as it relates to militaries in armed conflict, and it was used in reference to an armed conflict by military leadership. Perhaps Hegseth did not intend it in that way, but if he did not, I'm not sure why he wouldn't clarify and apologize for his poor choice of words (aside from the fact that apologizing when you make a mistake is clearly a sign of weakness, and the Secretary of WAR can't be seen to be weak).
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,001
- 17,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
In this current political environment, I wouldn't ever apologize for anything regardless of which party I was in.
Apologies or "walking back" statements is never met with any grace, forgiveness, or nuance, it's simply just used as fodder for the other team to say "ha!!! see, even they admit they were wrong!"
Can you think of any recent examples (from say, the last 15-20 years) where apologies/clarifications were issued, and it wasn't immediately weaponized by the opposing team? -- I guess I should clarify, I'm referring to national politics. There are probably some slivers of civility left in the local government level.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 10,587
- 11,371
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I can't think of any occasion in which Republicans apologized for anything in the past 15-20 years, so I fail to see the relevance.
But the fact remains that you're incorrect. The phrase has a defined meaning within the context that it was used, separate from the colloquial usage, and Hegseth - as a military veteran - absolutely knows what that meaning is.
Upvote
0
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,958
- 4,187
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Great. Then the law itself it not moot.
And moreover, it has been reported that illegal actions through Hegseth have already happened.
So one more time. There is good reason why the Dems made the video reminding the military they don't have to follow illegal orders.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,001
- 17,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Then maybe the ICC can send the international police to come arrest him and Trump for breaking international law.
Upvote
0
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,958
- 4,187
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Somehow, for some reason, I don't think Hegseth actions like shooting people clinging for life on boat fragments funny.
But that's just me.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,001
- 17,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Romney tried when he made the 47% comment.
“Clearly, in a campaign with hundreds, if not thousands, of speeches and question and answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right. In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong," Romney replied. "And I absolutely believe that my life has shown that I care about the 100 percent. That’s been demonstrated throughout my life and this whole campaign is about the 100 percent.”
Did he receive any grace for that apology?
Interestingly enough, after that, it sparked Biden (then VP) to say that Romney wanted to "put y'all back in chains"...
A comment which he also tried to apologize for afterwards
Spoiler: His opponents didn't give him any more grace than Romney got for his apology.
There is zero upside in issuing apologies. Your opponents aren't going to accept the apology in good faith, they'll just hammer you with it...and it makes a person look soft in the eyes of a subset of their own party.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,001
- 17,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Are we talking about those completely normal, not at all suspicious "fishing boats", you know, the normal kind of fishing boats with hidden compartments and multiple $80k high end outboard motors on them?
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 19,499
- 6,987
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Similar threads
