Spyke
politics·politics byMicroWave

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

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.

White House throws commanding admiral under the bus in killing of alleged drug boat survivorshttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-boat-war-crime_n_692df3a9e4b0c8c3c7ce9cdaOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
feddit.dk

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

216
0_o7reply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

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?

20
bearreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

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

3

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

107

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!

37

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.

6
lemmy.world

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

100
Donjuanmereply
lemmy.world

That's like what my understanding of fubar was, face unrecognizable, belay any response.

Thanks Dad.

Combined with a pretty bad case of face blindness led me to telling a fellow classmate a professor was "fubar" in public....

9
ジンreply
quokk.au

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

5

Your understanding of the term, assuming you replaced "fucked" with "fudged", is correct. The explanation given by the father was a lie to avoid teaching curse words to a child.

12

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

Edit: I was reading 'face' as a verb as in 'to confront", instructing you to face the unrecognizable.

On the other hand I guess it could be a suggestion that you hide any recognizable facial responses to something.

1

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.

77
lemmy.zip

Follow illegal orders, get thrown under the bus.

Dont follow illegal orders, get thrown under the bus.

70
mrgoosmoosreply
lemmy.ca

you know I'm starting to think that maybe they should just deal with the people giving the orders

37

That's very uncommon for brainwashed crowd called "military" to do so.

16

Its probably best to distance from the MAGA insanity if at all possible.

6
Ænimareply
lemmy.zip

Hillary coordinated it all from email!

28

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.

30
lemmy.world

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!"

24
lemmy.world

I mean, probably nothing. Its not like anyone is going to investigate or prosecute. Trump's just throwing up chaff so he can whine about the press treating him unfairly. "We didn't do it, but if we did it would have been based and cool, and don't think we won't do the thing we didn't do again if we feel like it" is exactly what I'd have expected to hear from a PR flack in the Bush or Reagan Era.

Hell, I'm pretty sure this is the line Bush Sr used when the US shot down that Iranian passenger airliner. Nobody suffered any kind of consequence for that, either. Hell, the air warfare coordinator on duty received the Navy Commendation Medal after killing a few hundred civilians.

I bet Trump's Navy Command is going to look like late-stage Brezhnev by the time he's finished passing out pins and ribbons for civilian casualties.

8

Admiral should've remembered the oldest rule in the military... "shit always rolls downhill." Don't think for a second that your superior will cover for you when something like this happens, even if they gave the order and should also be held accountable.

6
lemmy.world

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

45

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

43

As was said elsewhere, the transmitted command will have been recorded. The hard undeniable truth can be provided. Congress just needs to subpoena it, or a soldier with a conscience needs to whistleblow and leak it. Otherwise, we trust the liars' word and they get away with yet more of what are unquestionably, objectively, war crimes.

42
lemmy.world

We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.

Pete Hegseth [Source]

37
prolereply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

warfighters

I fucking hate the way this LARPer talks about armed forces

11

What do you expect? The man is a washed-up talk show host and a drunk. He is by no means the only completely unsuitable buffoon in this incompetent, criminal administration.

Just for comparison: the Secretary of Education, Lisa McMahon, is a former wrestling promoter (Vince McMahon's wife), and the Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccination advocate - not to mention the president.

All of this is so ridiculous that it would be funny if it weren't costing so many lives...

5

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 gave 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

36

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

33
lemmy.world

Can it be a war crime if you’re not actually at war? Seems like it’s just murder.

30
SaraToninreply
lemmy.world

There has to be an armed conflict between two or more nations. Otherwise they’re “just” crimes.

2

A military court has murder charges it can bring. The recent letter from JAGS Working Group specifies the war crimes and murder separately.

Edit to add article: Legal Experts Accuse Hegseth of ‘War Crimes, Murder, or Both’ After New Reporting on Boat Strike Order

Former top military lawyers on Saturday said that new reporting on orders personally given by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in early September, when the military struck the first of nearly two dozen boats in the Caribbean, suggests Hegseth has committed “war crimes, murder, or both.”

3
lemmy.ca

of course,the whole concept of war crimes is hilarious.

Blow up a boat with a missile killing people? OK

Kill them after you sunk the boat? NOT OK.

0
webpackreply
ani.social

the first one is illegal since we're not at war, they weren't an immediate threat, etc

the second is super illegal cause it's considered a war crime

5

Exactly. The reason why there's so much heat on this particular incident is simply because there's zero grey area. Like, in general the blowing up "drug boats" stuff is almost certainly a war crime, but it at least falls within the "Lawyers can argue it in court" realms. Whereas killing survivors of a sunken ship is literally the textbook definition of a warcrime in the US military's own manual on this stuff. It is so cut and dried that they use it as an example of a de facto illegal act.

2
lemmy.ca

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.

29
Ænimareply
lemmy.zip

Even in WWII, the German Navy refused Hitler's illegal orders and outright saved or radioed the location of boats they sunk and survivors in the water, even to the peril of their crew stealth. It pissed Hitler off early in the war.

18
lemmy.ca

Captain Zur See Hans Langsdorff of the Graf Spee was famous for this. It did eventually cost him his ship though he saved the majority of his crew along with any Allied prisoners he had aboard.

The German submarine fleet, on the other hand, was less inclined to do this primarily due to the nature of the submarine as a weapon. Though there were exceptions.

11

I'm a huge German UBoat fan. Loved Silent Hunter III and Wolfpack for games and live a few hours south of Chicago!

2

and i really wish people would understand it was that way before trump too. trump admin is a little more extreme and blunt about it.

America is a nation of purposely indoctrinated naivety and privilege that provides escapism from honest humanity. Its not just the government its the culture of arrogance. Some how you are all proud and willing to pay for people to be killed so you can remain free-range cattle for a nation of business to profits off and manipulates and uses your entire existence.

America is a threat to humanity as a whole.

2

I guess we can add "war criminal" or straight up "murderer" to Trump's list of accomplishments. It's his administration.

16

True, but politics is always going to be messy. Even if Bernie Sanders took the office, I'm sure he'd have to make lots of awful decisions. But even though Obama authorized drone strikes, I doubt he ever gave orders to kill everyone, or just arbitrarily struck fishing boats because he got off on it. Maybe Obama is a war criminal, but I think he really did feel bad about it. It's been established that Trump very literally, as in literally literally gets aroused by deporting people.

3
lemmy.ca

Do you want the military to coup d'etat your ass? Because throwing your admiral under a bus boat will make many military leaders think...

Eh, what am I saying? Please keep throwing them, we all want a coup at this point

14

This is the whole point of "chain of command". The suckers are at the bottom. This admiral should be grateful that he's not dead in the ditch somewhere like his victims abroad and in the lower ranks.

11
lemmy.world

This demonstrates another reason why you shouldn't obey clearly illegal orders. If you kill someone on the illegal order of a superior and then they deny having given the order, guess who's gonna hang for it?

10

Nobody, apparently. They think that if they pass the blame enough, most people will forget it ever even happened. They are right.

Until we start lynching killer cops in the streets, they'll never even think about holding their own accountable. It is only the threat of direct, immediate consequences that will have any effect on the status quo

2

Tbh I'd you joined the military and didn't figure this out beforehand, you didn't do enough research.

1

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.

-5
infosec.pub

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 neither Hesgeth or Trump have the authority to change those laws just because they want to.

11
lemmy.world

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.

-3
infosec.pub

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.

3
lemmy.world

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

1
Muehereply
lemmy.ml

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

2
lemmy.world

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.

1
Muehereply
lemmy.ml

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...

2
lemmy.world

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.

1

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.

1