Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

[Say it aint so]

White House says admiral approved second deadly boat strike​

​

The White House on Monday confirmed a second strike in September had killed wounded civilians after the first effort failed, and put responsibility largely on the naval commander leading the mission.​

​

Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said U.S. Special Operations Command head Adm. Frank Bradley was “within his authority and the law” in conducting the second strike on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean, after the force of the first strike tossed them from the boat.​

​

I was listening to Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling last night. There are some here who may be currently in, or were in the military who can confirm this. Hertling was saying the code training literally uses as the example of shooting of survivors in the water as an illegal act. Not him but me, but I kind of remember soldiers of other nations being brought to trial and executed for those such acts. Feel free to correct me if I am misremembering.

 

[MarcusGregor]

Hertling was saying the code training literally uses as the example of shooting of survivors in the water as an illegal act.

It's literally the example given in the Law of War manual on the DoD(W) website:

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations.

The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.

 

[Say it aint so]

It's literally the example given in the Law of War manual on the DoD(W) website:

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.

Thank you.

 

[durangodawood]

This is a thread I wanted to see.

Day 1: "This stuff about illegal orders is all made up and disingenuous!"

Day 3: Someone in the War Department issues a blatantly illegal order to kill obviously shipwrecked suspected criminals.

(Day 0: Extrajudicial killing of suspected drug traffickers was already illegal.)

 

[MarcusGregor]

This is a thread I wanted to see.

Day 1: "This stuff about illegal orders is all made up and disingenuous!"

Day 3: Someone in the War Department issues a blatantly illegal order to kill obviously shipwrecked suspected criminals.

(Day 0: Extrajudicial killing of suspected drug traffickers was already illegal.)

I predict that the new line of argument will be over the meaning of the term "shipwrecked."

 

[Richard T]

Yes, we should have known the boat strikes themselves are questionable as well as the use of U.S. Military to fight crime inside of America. So the idea that all the occupants of the boats are hardcore cartel members seems untrue. Criminals yes, but capital punishment seems quite harsh to me. To gun them down after an initial strike is the far worse crime.

There is a good article in the Wall Street Journal of how the drug boats,(called "go fasts." operate out of Columbia. (Here is the teaser, but it is behind a paywall).

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/deliver-or-die-inside-the-drug-boat-crews-ferrying-cocaine-to-the-u-s-590657eb?mod=world_trendingnow_article_pos3

The most basic way to ship includes a Pilot (Captain) some helpers and one representative from the drug shipper. The pilots often are former fishermen and know the waters really well. The interview with one of the workers suggested that they got 10k in cash for delivery. He acknowledged that some boats were being blown up but said he would probably do it again for 13k. "Crew members like the 29-year-old are more like freelancers—young men recruited for a job." The pilot makes the most money. No one seemed to think that the boats blowing up would slow the drug business down. That they would accept loads and do it as a sort of job.

 

[Say it aint so]

Yes, we should have known the boat strikes themselves are questionable as well as the use of U.S. Military to fight crime inside of America. So the idea that all the occupants of the boats are hardcore cartel members seems untrue. Criminals yes, but capital punishment seems quite harsh to me. To gun them down after an initial strike is the far worse crime.

There is a good article in the Wall Street Journal of how the drug boats,(called "go fasts." operate out of Columbia. (Here is the teaser, but it is behind a paywall).

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/deliver-or-die-inside-the-drug-boat-crews-ferrying-cocaine-to-the-u-s-590657eb?mod=world_trendingnow_article_pos3

The most basic way to ship includes a Pilot (Captain) some helpers and one representative from the drug shipper. The pilots often are former fishermen and know the waters really well. The interview with one of the workers suggested that they got 10k in cash for delivery. He acknowledged that some boats were being blown up but said he would probably do it again for 13k. "Crew members like the 29-year-old are more like freelancers—young men recruited for a job." The pilot makes the most money. No one seemed to think that the boats blowing up would slow the drug business down. That they would accept loads and do it as a sort of job.

Clearly none of that justifies the actions taken by the US. You just can't claim war against some outfit without some kind of concrete war is the only recourse as justification. There was a justification written by the White house lawyers. What info did they rely on? Trump's claims about the cartels.This stuff is bonkers.

The memo, which was completed in late summer, is said to open with a lengthy recitation of claims submitted by the White House, including that drug cartels are intentionally trying to kill Americans and destabilize the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Nithavela]

White House says admiral approved second deadly boat strike​

​

The White House on Monday confirmed a second strike in September had killed wounded civilians after the first effort failed, and put responsibility largely on the naval commander leading the mission.​

​

Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said U.S. Special Operations Command head Adm. Frank Bradley was “within his authority and the law” in conducting the second strike on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean, after the force of the first strike tossed them from the boat.​

​

I was listening to Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling last night. There are some here who may be currently in, or were in the military who can confirm this. Hertling was saying the code training literally uses as the example of shooting of survivors in the water as an illegal act. Not him but me, but I kind of remember soldiers of other nations being brought to trial and executed for those such acts. Feel free to correct me if I am misremembering.

That only happens when you lose a war.

Also, apparently they were narco-terrorists and thus had lost all their human rights.