5 ms·

A previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large count

A previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large country like that would have a pretty catastrophic effect on civilians. So that seems worse enough, I seriously hope no nukes will be involved.

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
You remember that video that some Democratic legislators did about refusing to obey illegal orders? This is where that becomes absolutely real. (Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Orders to commit war crimes are illegal by definition.)
- franktankbank 6mo ago
  Is that US law or international law?
  - JohnFen 6mo ago
    International law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
    - franktankbank 6mo ago
      That says internation law as US law. Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
      - JohnFen 6mo ago
        > it is selectively applied for national security. This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
        OrangePilled 6mo ago
        > and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law. Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.
        JohnFen 6mo ago
        It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
        OkayPhysicist 6mo ago
        This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - bdbdbdb 6mo ago
    They left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago
  - recursivecaveat 6mo ago
    There was this legal analysis about the Iran war crimes situation posted yesterday by some former military lawyers: https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-power-plants-iran/ https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
  - nofriend 6mo ago
    International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.
- vunderba 6mo ago
  Yup. Remember the blowback from those videos showing potential double-taps on the alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean? That’s a clear violation of “hors de combat” as outlined on page 244 of DoD’s own Law of War Manual [1] because unlike Hegseth, I actually took the time to read it. Hegseth came completely unhinged, going after Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement, etc. Then a few weeks ago, Hegseth gave an interview where he literally argued that the United States doesn’t have to follow international law. He called the rules of engagement “stupid” and went on with a bunch of similar remarks. It’s pretty clear that rather than trying to defend violations of international (and U.S.) law, the regime is now just saying they don’t have to follow them in the first place. 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...
KwisatzHaderack 6mo ago
Remember how they claimed this war was actually about helping the Iranian People? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
- OhMeadhbh 6mo ago
  Pretty sure it was to get everyone to stop talking about Epstein.
morkalork 6mo ago
I saw the observation elsewhere but the medium and long range drones seen in the Russian-Ukraine war at an industrial scale of production would be devastating. Along the lines of "Imagine 1M drones being launched in the opening salvo of a war. Every power substation, cellphone tower, gas station, water tower, oil pipeline etc. in a country could be targeted". It would indeed be civilization ending.

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago

You remember that video that some Democratic legislators did about refusing to obey illegal orders? This is where that becomes absolutely real. (Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Orders to commit war crimes are illegal by definition.)

franktankbank 6mo ago
Is that US law or international law?
- JohnFen 6mo ago
  International law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
  - franktankbank 6mo ago
    That says internation law as US law. Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
    - JohnFen 6mo ago
      > it is selectively applied for national security. This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
      - OrangePilled 6mo ago
        > and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law. Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.
        JohnFen 6mo ago
        It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
      - OkayPhysicist 6mo ago
        This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- bdbdbdb 6mo ago
  They left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago
- recursivecaveat 6mo ago
  There was this legal analysis about the Iran war crimes situation posted yesterday by some former military lawyers: https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-power-plants-iran/ https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
- nofriend 6mo ago
  International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.
vunderba 6mo ago
Yup. Remember the blowback from those videos showing potential double-taps on the alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean? That’s a clear violation of “hors de combat” as outlined on page 244 of DoD’s own Law of War Manual [1] because unlike Hegseth, I actually took the time to read it. Hegseth came completely unhinged, going after Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement, etc. Then a few weeks ago, Hegseth gave an interview where he literally argued that the United States doesn’t have to follow international law. He called the rules of engagement “stupid” and went on with a bunch of similar remarks. It’s pretty clear that rather than trying to defend violations of international (and U.S.) law, the regime is now just saying they don’t have to follow them in the first place. 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...

KwisatzHaderack 6mo ago

Remember how they claimed this war was actually about helping the Iranian People? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

OhMeadhbh 6mo ago
Pretty sure it was to get everyone to stop talking about Epstein.

morkalork 6mo ago

I saw the observation elsewhere but the medium and long range drones seen in the Russian-Ukraine war at an industrial scale of production would be devastating. Along the lines of "Imagine 1M drones being launched in the opening salvo of a war. Every power substation, cellphone tower, gas station, water tower, oil pipeline etc. in a country could be targeted". It would indeed be civilization ending.