5 ms·

For me, it's not the fact it exists that is shocking. It's the fact that it exists outside of any oversight and apparently without any consideration of US or fo

For me, it's not the fact it exists that is shocking. It's the fact that it exists outside of any oversight and apparently without any consideration of US or foreign law. I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now. But the more the US flaunts internal laws and norms on war, the more likely aggressors are going to put them aside and we're back to the savagery of World War I -- except now we have deadlier conventional and biological/chemical weapons.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Aggressors like what? The US has military superiority and distance to the other super powers, and it would not be in any of their interests to start a war - let alone one on moral grounds, which are flexible at best for all superpowers.
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  Like Great Britain, I imagine? Sending your special forces to another country with the specific task of killing their head of state is an act of aggression... but then again, if you're a permanent member of the UNSC, it doesn't matter much.
- RobRivera 5y ago
  fun fact, ww1 was started at a time of high economic interdependence among world powers
leroy_masochist 5y ago
These programs are directed by the Executive Branch with Legislative Branch oversight and potential Judicial Branch review. Not sure what any of these programs have to do with GC violations or laws/norms of war? Literally every major industrialized country has clandestine programs and this business predates the GCs by millennia ("the world's second-oldest profession, distinguished from the oldest one by its relative lack of ethics or morals").
- graderjs 5y ago
  That's not really true. There's lots of SAPs that have no Leg oversight, and Exec doesn't know about them. DoE has lots of black budget programs that don't have the same scrutiny as DoD ones. And even in DoD there's so many SAPs, it's not possible that Exec and Leg have been briefed in to all of them, nor asked to be. So while theoretically, Exec and Leg should be able to look at any SAP, how are they going to know about them, if someone in the program uses their discretion to decide to not tell them it exists? From the point of view of "democracy" this is definitely a bug. But from the point of view of SAPs and commercial interests involved in them, this is mostly a feature (except when things are so secret and locked down it's hard to bring in talent to work on them). Tho, in the case of this so-called "secret army" they don't seem to be suffering any talent shortage :p;) xx
  - leroy_masochist 5y ago
    Respectfully, you seem to be confusing the fact that there are government agencies which report to the EB and are overseen by the LB, and these agencies have highly sensitive SAPs about which very few people know specifics (true) with the notion that the EB has no idea in general about what goes on through these SAPs and there is no accountability within these agencies for methods used by these SAPs and/or the outcomes they achieve (untrue).
    - graderjs 5y ago
      I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there are blacker than black SAPs that escape any EB/LB oversight whatsoever. But, please, enlighten me differently if that's not true :) ;p xx
      - leroy_masochist 5y ago
austhrow743 5y ago
>I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
- md_ 5y ago
  Not sure what OP meant, but from what I understand (which is very little) the Geneva Conventions forbid "perfidy", which includes "feigning civilian, non-combatant status". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy. I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was about, however.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattkrause 5y ago
    The next part of Article 37, also quoted in the article, contrasts (which is forbidden) perfidy with permissible ruses of war. It’s a very blurry line, but actual combat seems to be one major distinction. Disguising a battleship as an enemy or merchant vessel seems to be okay...as long as the disguise is dropped before engaging. However, marking it as a hospital ship seems right out regardless of the situation because the hospital emblem is specially protected because those ships are never supposed to be attacked. This database has many countries’ interpretation of the differences: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule57 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
    - md_ 5y ago
      Thanks, super interesting.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

Aggressors like what? The US has military superiority and distance to the other super powers, and it would not be in any of their interests to start a war - let alone one on moral grounds, which are flexible at best for all superpowers.

Joker_vD 5y ago
Like Great Britain, I imagine? Sending your special forces to another country with the specific task of killing their head of state is an act of aggression... but then again, if you're a permanent member of the UNSC, it doesn't matter much.
RobRivera 5y ago
fun fact, ww1 was started at a time of high economic interdependence among world powers

leroy_masochist 5y ago

These programs are directed by the Executive Branch with Legislative Branch oversight and potential Judicial Branch review. Not sure what any of these programs have to do with GC violations or laws/norms of war? Literally every major industrialized country has clandestine programs and this business predates the GCs by millennia ("the world's second-oldest profession, distinguished from the oldest one by its relative lack of ethics or morals").

graderjs 5y ago
That's not really true. There's lots of SAPs that have no Leg oversight, and Exec doesn't know about them. DoE has lots of black budget programs that don't have the same scrutiny as DoD ones. And even in DoD there's so many SAPs, it's not possible that Exec and Leg have been briefed in to all of them, nor asked to be. So while theoretically, Exec and Leg should be able to look at any SAP, how are they going to know about them, if someone in the program uses their discretion to decide to not tell them it exists? From the point of view of "democracy" this is definitely a bug. But from the point of view of SAPs and commercial interests involved in them, this is mostly a feature (except when things are so secret and locked down it's hard to bring in talent to work on them). Tho, in the case of this so-called "secret army" they don't seem to be suffering any talent shortage :p;) xx
- leroy_masochist 5y ago
  Respectfully, you seem to be confusing the fact that there are government agencies which report to the EB and are overseen by the LB, and these agencies have highly sensitive SAPs about which very few people know specifics (true) with the notion that the EB has no idea in general about what goes on through these SAPs and there is no accountability within these agencies for methods used by these SAPs and/or the outcomes they achieve (untrue).
  - graderjs 5y ago
    I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there are blacker than black SAPs that escape any EB/LB oversight whatsoever. But, please, enlighten me differently if that's not true :) ;p xx
    - leroy_masochist 5y ago

austhrow743 5y ago

>I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?

md_ 5y ago
Not sure what OP meant, but from what I understand (which is very little) the Geneva Conventions forbid "perfidy", which includes "feigning civilian, non-combatant status". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy. I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was about, however.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mattkrause 5y ago
  The next part of Article 37, also quoted in the article, contrasts (which is forbidden) perfidy with permissible ruses of war. It’s a very blurry line, but actual combat seems to be one major distinction. Disguising a battleship as an enemy or merchant vessel seems to be okay...as long as the disguise is dropped before engaging. However, marking it as a hospital ship seems right out regardless of the situation because the hospital emblem is specially protected because those ships are never supposed to be attacked. This database has many countries’ interpretation of the differences: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule57 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
  - md_ 5y ago
    Thanks, super interesting.