10 ms·

NYT says US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission

81 points by hnlurker22 1y ago

jackb4040 1y ago
The original title is "US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission". Your change is... questionable
- hnlurker22 1y ago
  What's questionable about it. It was just shorter.
  - John23832 1y ago
    It totally changes the context? It removes the focus of the killing of civilians and makes it "aw shucks, the mission didn't go as planned".
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - olddustytrail 1y ago
    The bit where killing people is just an oopsie.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ekianjo 1y ago
> A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said. Justified against unarmed civilians?
- crikeykangaroo 1y ago
  US Special Forces - not surprising. The Western propaganda is what sells them as heroes.
  - bediger4000 1y ago
    Fort Bragg Fever
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - crikeykangaroo 1y ago
    That's indeed how it usually goes with these lunatics. 1) Commit war crime. 2) Face the music for a moment. 3) Go to a friendly podcast and raise support (just say you have trauma and pain, and the people you've killed were animals anyway). 4) Become a free man. 5) Optionally for Seals: write a book with a chapter about hell week (can be done @ step 2 as well)
  - braincat31415 1y ago
    Geneva Convention articles allow targeting civilians only when they directly participate in hostilities. Other than that, a willful killing of civilians is always a war crime. The Pentagon setting its own rules of engagement does not change anything. Following the same rules, civilian defender in the US will find him/herself in prison very quickly. Ability, opportunity and intent will not be proven by stating that the defender felt threatened.
  - croes 1y ago
    Of course not a war crime because North Korea and the US are not at war. Just a crime
- padjo 1y ago
  Killing unarmed civilians is SOP for the US military.
mig39 1y ago
"US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission, NYT says" is the title of the article. Why is it different when submitted?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
chmod775 1y ago
Makes those forces seem a lot less "special" if their highly trained SEALs on their super secret mission can get startled by a bunch of fishers probably going about their daily routine. Truly outstanding planning, reconnaissance, and decision-making in the field. If I ever need some guys in swimwear taken out, I know who to call. North Korean media likes to depict US soldiers as what can only be summarized as cruel demons. Depictions of US soldiers torturing and killing civilians are especially common[1]. If they were ever warming up to the west, this incident among others should serve as a good reminder to not alter course. > [..] talks have fallen apart and North Korea has forged ahead with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. I'd build more nuclear weapons as fast as I could as well if that's who I'm dealing with. [1] Some examples of North Korean anti-American propaganda for your viewing pleasure: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/north-korea-anti-american-propaganda-pictures/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/north-korea-anti-american-p...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  Those weren't Marines
  - chmod775 1y ago
    My bad. I corrected the mistake. Next lunch order from Crayola is on me.
neilv 1y ago
> The civilians appeared to be diving for shellfish when they inadvertently came across the detachment of SEALs as they splashed ashore at night, the Times reported. The American forces opened fire, killing all those aboard the small fishing vessel, the report said, without specifying the number of casualties. [...] A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said. Can someone explain? Were they believed to be militants? Were they recognized as civilians but they took up weapons? Is there a rule that you can kill a non-militant who might raise the alarm to militants, even if not at war? Were there unusual orders in effect for this mission? Something else?
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  There are different clandestine and covert legal authorities under which these kinds of operations can be conducted with different rules of engagement. While most don't, some of these authorities may allow for killing of innocents in furtherance of the mission. The article implies that the rules of engagement for this particular mission allowed for the elimination of witnesses. Governments around the world have strong incentives to keep this kind of thing out of the news even when they are on the receiving end, so it is relatively rare for it to leak into the public sphere no matter which government ends up killing innocents.
  - neilv 1y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. Isn't this a pretty dangerous power and precedent to have, if you're the good guys? Especially if you don't have a lot of confidence that the top of the command chain will always be of the utmost integrity and decency?
    - jandrewrogers 1y ago
      At least in the US, there is a systematic separation of concerns and quite a few authorization interlocks. These are intentionally designed to make it nearly impossible for a rogue unit to operate with legal cover. Everybody who is a part of that legal process takes their bit very seriously and it isn’t just a bunch of political appointees. Some types of operations require explicit and direct sign-off by the President, which provides legal sanction for people doing the work. Even in these cases, the operational details are left to the career professionals. That isn’t to say that organizations can’t leave the reservation (see: FBI under Hoover) but that over time they’ve built up a lot of internal structure to limit it with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is useful to note that almost all of this was invented out of whole cloth after WW2, so the US has had to learn a lot of lessons the hard way.
canada_dry 1y ago
When confronted with the story today in the Oval Office Trump said: "I don't know anything about it". Delivered with the same bland expression he uses when he's clearly lying.
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137040

81 points by hnlurker22 1y ago

The original title is "US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission". Your change is... questionable

hnlurker22 1y ago
What's questionable about it. It was just shorter.
- John23832 1y ago
  It totally changes the context? It removes the focus of the killing of civilians and makes it "aw shucks, the mission didn't go as planned".
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- olddustytrail 1y ago
  The bit where killing people is just an oopsie.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ekianjo 1y ago

> A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said. Justified against unarmed civilians?

crikeykangaroo 1y ago
US Special Forces - not surprising. The Western propaganda is what sells them as heroes.
- bediger4000 1y ago
  Fort Bragg Fever
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
[flagged]
- crikeykangaroo 1y ago
  That's indeed how it usually goes with these lunatics. 1) Commit war crime. 2) Face the music for a moment. 3) Go to a friendly podcast and raise support (just say you have trauma and pain, and the people you've killed were animals anyway). 4) Become a free man. 5) Optionally for Seals: write a book with a chapter about hell week (can be done @ step 2 as well)
- braincat31415 1y ago
  Geneva Convention articles allow targeting civilians only when they directly participate in hostilities. Other than that, a willful killing of civilians is always a war crime. The Pentagon setting its own rules of engagement does not change anything. Following the same rules, civilian defender in the US will find him/herself in prison very quickly. Ability, opportunity and intent will not be proven by stating that the defender felt threatened.
- croes 1y ago
  Of course not a war crime because North Korea and the US are not at war. Just a crime
padjo 1y ago
Killing unarmed civilians is SOP for the US military.

mig39 1y ago

"US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission, NYT says" is the title of the article. Why is it different when submitted?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

chmod775 1y ago

Makes those forces seem a lot less "special" if their highly trained SEALs on their super secret mission can get startled by a bunch of fishers probably going about their daily routine. Truly outstanding planning, reconnaissance, and decision-making in the field. If I ever need some guys in swimwear taken out, I know who to call. North Korean media likes to depict US soldiers as what can only be summarized as cruel demons. Depictions of US soldiers torturing and killing civilians are especially common[1]. If they were ever warming up to the west, this incident among others should serve as a good reminder to not alter course. > [..] talks have fallen apart and North Korea has forged ahead with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. I'd build more nuclear weapons as fast as I could as well if that's who I'm dealing with. [1] Some examples of North Korean anti-American propaganda for your viewing pleasure: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/north-korea-anti-american-propaganda-pictures/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/north-korea-anti-american-p...

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
Those weren't Marines
- chmod775 1y ago
  My bad. I corrected the mistake. Next lunch order from Crayola is on me.

neilv 1y ago

> The civilians appeared to be diving for shellfish when they inadvertently came across the detachment of SEALs as they splashed ashore at night, the Times reported. The American forces opened fire, killing all those aboard the small fishing vessel, the report said, without specifying the number of casualties. [...] A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said. Can someone explain? Were they believed to be militants? Were they recognized as civilians but they took up weapons? Is there a rule that you can kill a non-militant who might raise the alarm to militants, even if not at war? Were there unusual orders in effect for this mission? Something else?

jandrewrogers 1y ago
There are different clandestine and covert legal authorities under which these kinds of operations can be conducted with different rules of engagement. While most don't, some of these authorities may allow for killing of innocents in furtherance of the mission. The article implies that the rules of engagement for this particular mission allowed for the elimination of witnesses. Governments around the world have strong incentives to keep this kind of thing out of the news even when they are on the receiving end, so it is relatively rare for it to leak into the public sphere no matter which government ends up killing innocents.
- neilv 1y ago
  Thanks for the explanation. Isn't this a pretty dangerous power and precedent to have, if you're the good guys? Especially if you don't have a lot of confidence that the top of the command chain will always be of the utmost integrity and decency?
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    At least in the US, there is a systematic separation of concerns and quite a few authorization interlocks. These are intentionally designed to make it nearly impossible for a rogue unit to operate with legal cover. Everybody who is a part of that legal process takes their bit very seriously and it isn’t just a bunch of political appointees. Some types of operations require explicit and direct sign-off by the President, which provides legal sanction for people doing the work. Even in these cases, the operational details are left to the career professionals. That isn’t to say that organizations can’t leave the reservation (see: FBI under Hoover) but that over time they’ve built up a lot of internal structure to limit it with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is useful to note that almost all of this was invented out of whole cloth after WW2, so the US has had to learn a lot of lessons the hard way.

canada_dry 1y ago

When confronted with the story today in the Oval Office Trump said: "I don't know anything about it". Delivered with the same bland expression he uses when he's clearly lying.

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137040