Pete Hegseth Needs to Go–Now(www.theatlantic.com)
17 pointsby JumpCrisscross2 months ago4 comments
  • DLA2 months ago
    So what is the illegal order, specifically? Lots of people repeating talking points but not one cites the illegal order. And, The Atlantic is anything but a fair “media” outlet, so consider the source. (21 years in the military).
    • vunderba2 months ago
      Plenty of sources have been pretty clear about it. If Hegseth ordered a double-tap to ensure that the two survivors floating in the debris were terminated, then he violated U.S. law.

      Section 5.4.7 of the DOD Law of War Manual:

        Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. 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. 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. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.
      Additionally persons rendered incapacitated in the water in this capacity would be considered "Hors de Combat".

      You may want to refresh yourself with actual Department of Defense Law of War Manual - see page 244.

      https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...

      • DLA2 months ago
        [Not a JAG] I think there are legal interpretations here that I am not qualified to make. However, countless times in Irag, Afghanistan, and elsewhere target vehicles or compounds were struck, killing some and causing others to flee. Fleeing is NOT surrender. So this gets nuanced really quickly.
        • jmye2 months ago
          Are you suggesting that survivors floating on debris in the middle of the ocean were “fleeing”, or is this just useless equivocation and excuse-making?

          Why is media in scare quotes in your original post?

          • DLA2 months ago
            God no I am not saying people floating are fleeing; not even the slightest. I was, however, pointing out events from the past and how post-strike targets were often finished in counterterrorism strikes from land wars. This was not a matter of giving no quarter but one of eliminating threats. The cartels have been designated as terrorist organizations, which does open additional operational options. Not passing judgment; trying to consider the complex nuances here.

            Media is quoted because The Atlantic tends to be very biased to one side—-they are not objective; they have an agenda.

            • jmye2 months ago
              I suppose I’m not clear what threat someone clinging to debris in the middle of the ocean continues to pose that would necessitate anything other than rescue and detention.

              It seems, rather, that that’s not happening because the military and the Commander-in-Chief are scared that they might find a microphone, rather than any actual real concern about, well, any threat they might pose.

              Does having a vague bias make an organization no longer “media”?

              • DLA2 months ago
                ABC News now reporting:

                New details emerged Wednesday about the second strike by the U.S. military on an alleged boat on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors, according to a source familiar with the incident.

                The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike, the source said.

                They were believed to be potentially in communication with others in the vicinity and were salvaging some of the drugs that had been the boat’s cargo, the source said, and because of these actions were determined to be "still in the fight" and considered to be valid targets.

                https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-details-emerge-controver...

          • maximinus_thrax2 months ago
            Don't. Check the user's history, this will not be a good faith debate.
            • jmye2 months ago
              I find myself increasingly concerned that, when not asked to explain their views, people will take vague posts that pretend to be factual as actually factual, because media literacy is basically non-existent.

              I don’t need to be in a sixteen comment “debate”, but I think there’s sometimes a lot of value in one or two questions that might expose a comment for what it is.

              But your point is definitely well taken!

            • DLA2 months ago
              This is a good faith debate. Notice asking questions and being transparent about what I do not know.
  • notepad0x902 months ago
    I don't know anything about the UCMJ, but I wonder if people who executed his orders will be criminally liable in time? What's even more interesting is if they can all get a pre-emptive pardon.
    • belter2 months ago
      DoD Law of War Manual:

      "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."

      ...For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal...

    • smt882 months ago
      Trump will absolutely give preemptive pardons to everyone in his administration, his family, and himself
      • belter2 months ago
        But if a future President...would break the law by ignoring those pardons, the US Supreme Court says such President would be immune so ....
        • smt882 months ago
          There is a huge amount of precedent for these situations in Central and South America (dictators pardoning themselves for crimes against humanity).

          Sometimes a future regime can overcome the pardons, sometimes not. The current SCOTUS, filled with loyalists, will probably need to change first.

  • labrador2 months ago
    I wonder what delusions Hegseth is operating under? That's he's above the law and Trump's immunity is his? Trump is not going to live forever. Hegseth thinks he's General Patton except Patton was exceptionally well read and intelligent while Hegseth is mostly known for his drinking problem and his promise not to drink so he could take the job.
    • andsoitis2 months ago
      > is mostly known for

      fit. you forgot fit.

    • smt882 months ago
      Trump and Hegseth are absolutely above the (federal) law because of Trump's pardon power. Hegseth is committing federal crimes with justified confidence.
      • richardatlarge2 months ago
        Ever heard of extradition?
        • f30e3dfed1c92 months ago
          The United States is not going to allow an active or former secretary of defense to be extradited to stand trial in another country. Just not going to happen.
          • dolphinscorpion2 months ago
            True, but then he will stay in USA forever and never travel
        • smt882 months ago
          Yes, and it's never going to happen to a US secretary of state.
  • DivingForGold2 months ago
    Ummmm, I would probably not want to be working at the Atlantic right now . . . as soon as tommorrow G-men could show up at their offices and order everyone onto the floor . . . you can fill in the rest of the blanks . . . just sayin