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

[comana]

If many who shout their moral outrage over the treatment of terrorist drug dealers had the same amount of moral outrage about the lefts treatment of Trump it would be more believable. Actually we all know it is really not about concern for drug dealers it is about damaging Trump and his administration. I believe the word is hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy. Trump deserves the criticism against him and the DOD, more specifically the individuals involved in giving and carrying out the orders, needs to be held to account for what is looking more and more like an illegal act.

 

[Always in His Presence]

AI summaries are useless without accompanying sources.

If it is against the forum rules - report me -

If not - it is just another complaint against a posting style - adding zero to the topic of the thread

 

[Nithavela]

Apparently now calling for help when shipwrecked and floating in cold water is a hostile action.

 

[DaisyDay]

This all started with a lie -

Hegseth said "kill them all" - Now the narrative has changed.

We don't know whether the original accusation, i.e. "Kill them all", is not true or if the current denial is just a coverup.

The decision was made by a career Navel Commander along side a JAG officer as consultant.

Entire Chain of Command Could Be Held Liable for Killing Boat Strike Survivors, Sources Say

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s actions could spark investigations for war crimes or outright murder, sources told The Intercept.

theintercept.com

Sarah Harrison, who advised Pentagon policymakers on issues related to human rights and the law of war in her former role as associate general counsel at the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel, International Affairs, said each strike creates potential legal liability for the entire chain of command involved in the attacks. “While the September 2 strike seems uniquely depraved, every single strike taken against these boats by DoD is a summary execution of criminal suspects, people who even if tried in court would never get the death penalty,” she told The Intercept. “Every single strike exposes those in the chain of command to the risk of criminal liability under murder statutes and international law prohibiting extrajudicial killings.”​

 

[Servus]

Correct. The Navy shot those people and did not necessarily see it as an immoral act at the time. We can't know what was in their hearts then..

I believe he was takling about the people commenting on it who weren't agreeing with the accusations of murder and war crimes before the facts were in.

Why do you condone it?

More like I wasn't condemning it at the time because at that point it sounded pretty much Obama's drone strikes along with enumerable other strikes throughout US history. And most of what I was hearing sounded more like the usual hyperbolic trump vilification which is what I was mainly arguing against as usual. The usual accusation in such cases is I'm defending, condoning, justifying whatever. But it's really a matter of arguing against what sounds like poppycock to me. Like if someone claimed Hitler chopped up his classmates with a hatchet when he was ten, I'd argue against that because it's poppycock. But of course the other person would say "Why are you defending Hitler?!".

 

[Always in His Presence]

We don't know whether the original accusation, i.e. "Kill them all", is not true or if the current denial is just a coverup.

Then why did the media 'correct' the report?

Entire Chain of Command Could Be Held Liable for Killing Boat Strike Survivors, Sources Say

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s actions could spark investigations for war crimes or outright murder, sources told The Intercept.

theintercept.com

Sarah Harrison, who advised Pentagon policymakers on issues related to human rights and the law of war in her former role as associate general counsel at the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel, International Affairs, said each strike creates potential legal liability for the entire chain of command involved in the attacks. “While the September 2 strike seems uniquely depraved, every single strike taken against these boats by DoD is a summary execution of criminal suspects, people who even if tried in court would never get the death penalty,” she told The Intercept. “Every single strike exposes those in the chain of command to the risk of criminal liability under murder statutes and international law prohibiting extrajudicial killings.”​

The Intercept? Really? How about if I retort with Brietbart?

Apparently now calling for help when shipwrecked and floating in cold water is a hostile action.

Cold water? Average surface temp of 75-84?

and the puppies - don't forget the puppies drowning!​

 

[Servus]

Cold water? Average surface temp of 75-84?

Yes, the Caribbean is tropical water.

 

[Factotum]

AI summaries are useless without accompanying sources.

I dont think they agree with that principle, at msnbc... The View... CNN... Jimmy Kimmel... the DNC... the CBC... etc

 

[Nithavela]

AI summaries are useless without accompanying sources.

Because of AI summaries, this place is no fun anymore.

 

[Servus]

This all started with a lie -

Hegseth said "kill them all" - Now the narrative has changed.

The decision was made by a career Navel Commander along side a JAG officer as consultant for the following reasons (AI)

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.

But you know no matter what they'll adamantly stick to the original narrative.

 

[Servus]

Referencing Obama's war crimes or his controversial bombings, is not changing the topic. It is simply reminding some people of Presidential acts which they were okay with --as long as it isn't the Trump Admin doing the evil! lol

It's an efficient way to help people see their own hypocrisies and mea culpas.

I'm waiting for the reply to be "never happened".

 

[DaisyDay]

Then why did the media 'correct' the report?

Which media where?

The Intercept? Really? How about if I retort with Brietbart?

I thought the prone to hallucinations AI was your preferred sourceless source. The Intercept is not perfect, "mostly factual" but you can check the specific allegations against other sources.

Is Sarah Harrison incorrect in her assertion? If so, how so?

Cold water? Average surface temp of 75-84?

Yeah, you're right. It's pretty balmy so close to the equator, but at the lower end of that range, hypothermia is a danger - the longer the submersion, the higher the danger.

and the puppies - don't forget the puppies drowning!​

 

[DaisyDay]

Referencing Obama's war crimes or his controversial bombings, is not changing the topic.

It totally is. What aboutism.

It is simply reminding some people of Presidential acts which they were okay with --as long as it isn't the Trump Admin doing the evil! lol

Yeah, like you know what the posters here are and were okay with. This smacks of projection.

It's an efficient way to help people see their own hypocrisies and mea culpas.

Sure, baseless suppositions about what people you don't know think is ever so helpful and will surely cause people to see the error of their ways and mend their perception of Trump's inadequacies.

 

[RDKirk]

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

Being in a lifeboat is unnecessary. Floating in the water, clinging to flotsam, all those situations are explicitly covered by examples from history in LOAC training. It's illegal to kill them in that state.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Being in a lifeboat is unnecessary. Floating in the water, clinging to flotsam, all those situations are explicitly covered by examples from history in LOAC training. It's illegal to kill them in that state.

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

Prove this is not viable:

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.

 

[BCP1928]

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

I still haven't heard that they were actually shooting back, or even preparing to do so. Have you?

 

[RDKirk]

I can sympathize with you, and I wish you the best in handling your displeasure. I know elders who felt the same way in 2012, and especially in 2016 when Obama-Biden Afghanistan bombings killed about 100 innocent civilians incl. children and women.

From the military perspective, here is the difference. I've said it before, but I'll repeat it:

Determining where military action should take place is determined by the president and Congress. If those two branches of government are in agreement (that is, Congress as a body has not disagreed with the president), nobody in uniform has the authority to say "No" to the "where."

Once in combat, how we conduct the battle is governed by the Law of Armed Conflict, which is a compendium of US laws already legislated by Congress.

If a target is itself a valid target according to the president and Congress has failed to disagree, certain levels of civilian casualties are permitted by the LOAC if they cannot be avoided or occur through accident despite due care taken. That's what was happening in all but one known case during the Obama and Biden administrations. There were the same kind of incidents that happen in any conflict.

The one questionable incident was the attack against Anwar al-Awlaki. Contrary to popular opinion, the US military killing American citizens--even deliberately--is not prohibited in every circumstance. There are circumstances that permit it. It was questionable at the presidential/Congressional level whether Anwar al-Awlaki was an allowable target. That's far above the soldier's authority to determine, and that is not governed by the Law of Armed Conflict. But how he was killed was correct under the LOAC.

As we are debating in this thread the actions of military members under the Law of Armed Conflict, the issue of Anwar al-Awlaki is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with killing shipwrecked belligerents. Killing shipwrecked belligerents who are no longer capable of returning fire is illegal in every instance under the LOAC.

 

[7thKeeper]

I think I'm sure what you are defending here, as it illogically shows compassion for people who hate us Americans so much to whereas they risk their lives to gleefully deliver fatal [Schedule I] substances for multitudes of vulnerable Americans to fatally ingest.

I've lost people who I love, to the type of substances on the darn boat!! So please forgive me sir, as I work hard locating my compassion like you have for the perps. So far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.

It's not compassion, it's the law and rules. And I am to assume that you're a mind reader to know that these people supposedly (as there has been no evidence that drugs were being trafficked shown so far), "hate" Americans instead of just doing it for the money?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I still haven't heard that they were actually shooting back, or even preparing to do so. Have you?

Who said they were shooting at any point?

 

[RDKirk]

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

The only person claiming that is Tom Cotton. Everyone else who has seen the video (and doesn't have his own okole to cover) says differently.

This is the problem facing the military people involved at the time: The LOAC required them to have rescue facilities, a plan of some kind, available to pick up survivors. Even if they had not killed the survivors, the fact that they carried out an attack without a means to rescue survivors is already a violation of the LOAC. Leaving them eventually to drown would already be a violation of the LOAC.

Essentially, their very plan of attack had already put them in violation of the LOAC...they planned to commit a crime. Everything after that was covering their own okoles.