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.
115 Comments
xxce2AAb@feddit.dk · 216 pts · 262d
And this is one of the many, many good reasons why one does not comply with illegal orders, damn it!
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 262d
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?
xxce2AAb@feddit.dk · 20 pts · 262d
That just underscores the point I made.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 260d
What point? That you live in an imaginary fantasy land?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 261d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging
A proud American tradition
bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 261d
That makes me wonder what the highest level frag has been. I mean, not counting Caesar.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 261d
Seems it's Caesar then.
UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub · 107 pts · 262d
Oh look, exactly what Mark Kelly was talking about. Shit rolls down hill guys. Remember that when someone orders you to murder people.
massacre@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 262d
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!
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz · 11 pts · 262d
I just followed the orders.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 261d
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 260d
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.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 100 pts · 262d
RTFM
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world · -18 pts · 262d
I didn't see anything about reading the fan mail...
Donjuanme@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 262d
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....
Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au · 5 pts · 262d
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
NABDad@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 262d
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.
xorollo@leminal.space · 1 pts · 262d
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.
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 262d
If it's any consolation, more than several professors ARE fubar
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 77 pts · 262d
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.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 70 pts · 262d
Follow illegal orders, get thrown under the bus.
Dont follow illegal orders, get thrown under the bus.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 37 pts · 261d
you know I'm starting to think that maybe they should just deal with the people giving the orders
khaleer@sopuli.xyz · 16 pts · 261d
That's very uncommon for brainwashed crowd called "military" to do so.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 260d
... and following the orders.
DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 261d
Stop the bus
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 261d
Its probably best to distance from the MAGA insanity if at all possible.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 260d
Yes, the actual problem is people following orders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion
myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip · 58 pts · 262d
I can’t believe it was Joe Biden that flew the plane.
Proles_Uprising_Now@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 261d
I heard Obama told him too
regedit@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 261d
Hillary coordinated it all from email!
Spacehooks@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 261d
It's all on the private server!
JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 260d
And all the males Hunter buttered up!
Spacehooks@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 260d
Get me those laptops photos!
billwashere@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 261d
Pretty sure Obama was the weapons specialist on board… gees.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 260d
This guy?
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/18/1245650630/biden-reinstates-sanctions-on-venezuela
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 262d
So we went from denial, to it happened but it wasn't us...
Instigate@aussie.zone · 30 pts · 262d
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.
ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 262d
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!"
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 262d
When do we enter the phase that no boat was even destroyed that day?
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 261d
Hey military— see what happens when you obey illegal orders?
⤵️🚌
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 261d
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.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 261d
Yeah, except the investigative body in this case is not the US government.
JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 260d
So no consequences for them again? Got it.
UltraMagnus@startrek.website · 6 pts · 260d
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.
ceenote@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 262d
If he ordered it, or complied with the order from above, lock him up. If not, this accusation is yet another confession.
Eh_I@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 262d
Time to make this witness cooperative.
BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz · 43 pts · 262d
It was LEGAL but ALSO Pete Hegseth DIDNT know about it AND we Fired someone Over it!
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 262d
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.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 262d
Pete Hegseth [Source]
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 261d
I fucking hate the way this LARPer talks about armed forces
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 261d
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...
sturmblast@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 261d
He's an idiot
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 261d
Indeed, and a murderer
DrFistington@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 262d
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
UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub · 20 pts · 262d
Ordering that operations be conducted on the basis that there be "no survivors" is also specifically cited as an example of a war crime by the same manual: "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."
Page 211 https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF
Horsecook@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 262d
MisterOwl@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 262d
When. When the dictator falls.
Horsecook@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 262d
HocEnimVeni@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 262d
Hmm, I wonder why Admiral Holsey decided to retire when he did. 🤔
flango@lemmy.eco.br · 33 pts · 262d
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
SaraTonin@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 261d
Can it be a war crime if you’re not actually at war? Seems like it’s just murder.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 33 pts · 261d
Don't need to be at war to commit "war crimes"
SaraTonin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 261d
There has to be an armed conflict between two or more nations. Otherwise they’re “just” crimes.
stringere@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 261d
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
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 260d
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.
webpack@ani.social · 5 pts · 260d
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
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 260d
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.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 260d
Just ask any president ever in the history of USA... It's never a crime to murder poor people.
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 260d
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 260d
Imagine believing that there's anything "legal" about global imperialism.
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 262d
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.
regedit@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 261d
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.
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 261d
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.
regedit@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 261d
I'm a huge German UBoat fan. Loved Silent Hunter III and Wolfpack for games and live a few hours south of Chicago!
Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 260d
Dear America,
You are disposable to them.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 260d
0nt0p0fth3w0rld@feddit.org · 2 pts · 260d
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.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 261d
I guess we can add "war criminal" or straight up "murderer" to Trump's list of accomplishments. It's his administration.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 260d
Yes, this is literally every president.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 260d
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.
zqps@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 260d
If only he was closer to his predecessors in other ways too.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 260d
Do you want the military to coup d'etat your ass? Because throwing your admiral under a
busboat will make many military leaders think...Eh, what am I saying? Please keep throwing them, we all want a coup at this point
Hadriscus@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 260d
Exactly
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 260d
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.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 260d
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?
KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 260d
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
Randomgal@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 260d
Tbh I'd you joined the military and didn't figure this out beforehand, you didn't do enough research.
AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 262d
Kill. Them. All.
And I don't mean boat.
Tryenjer@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 262d
Mad King Aerys II vibes.
AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 260d
I mean did you expect anyone in maga to take responsibility for anything negative?
Mastengwe@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 262d
Gotta keep those trains running on time.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 262d
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.
UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 262d
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.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 262d
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.
UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 261d
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.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 261d
Perhaps the core problem is that the people expected to follow the rules get to make them too. That usually works out well.
UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 261d
Except they don't. These are laws passed by Congress just like every other law.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 260d
The manual is for interpretations of international law. Not US law. So no congress involved.
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 261d
Yeah but they didn't change it though, so it was forbidden under the current rules. Too late to change that.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 261d
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.
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 260d
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...
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 260d
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.
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 260d
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.