4 ms·

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 fai

by DLA 10mo 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).

vunderba 10mo 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-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...
- DLA 10mo 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.
  - jmye 10mo 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?
    - maximinus_thrax 10mo ago
      Don't. Check the user's history, this will not be a good faith debate.
      - DLA 10mo ago
        This is a good faith debate. Notice asking questions and being transparent about what I do not know.
        maximinus_thrax 10mo ago
        I do notice, it's called sealioning
      - jmye 10mo 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!
    - DLA 10mo 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.
      - jmye 10mo 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”?

by DLA 10mo ago

vunderba 10mo 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-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...

DLA 10mo 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.
- jmye 10mo 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?
  - maximinus_thrax 10mo ago
    Don't. Check the user's history, this will not be a good faith debate.
    - DLA 10mo ago
      This is a good faith debate. Notice asking questions and being transparent about what I do not know.
      - maximinus_thrax 10mo ago
        I do notice, it's called sealioning
    - jmye 10mo 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!
  - DLA 10mo 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.
    - jmye 10mo 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”?