Civil War-again?

[JimFoxvog]

Have there been any orders given that are unlawful that a solder should defy? That accusation keeps being tossed about.

Yes, the murder of civilians in the Caribbean. If they are not all pardoned, I expect Hegseth and those who carried out his orders to kill all of the people on the boats suspected of drug trafficking will be tried and convicted. They still will have to avoid international travel, as these murders also violate international law.

[JohnH]

Have there been any orders given that are unlawful that a solder should defy? That accusation keeps being tossed about.

Yes, the murder of civilians in the Caribbean. If they are not all pardoned, I expect Hegseth and those who carried out his orders to kill all of the people on the boats suspected of drug trafficking will be tried and convicted. They still will have to avoid international travel, as these murders also violate international law.

That seems unlikely, given the statutes that govern the ability of the federal government to do basically anything if it's "fighting terrorism".

[Judas Maccabeus]

There is a very thin line between a legal order and an illegal order.
People who refuse to deploy to Iraq, were court marshaled.
There is no ethical position without sacrifice. If you’re in the military, you’re told to not obey illegal orders, but then you’re not given the training to distinguish which one is and which one isn’t. that is done by the Jag officers and officers in general.
What we are doing in Venezuela is crossing the line. when the admiral retires, that’s a protest.
Unlike all of you, I actually was in the military, and I was in the position of being given illegal orders.

My friend, a former army major, suggests that commissioned officers are given far more training than NCOs, particularly field grade officers. They are the ones generally giving the orders.

sounds about right

No. But the ultimate avenue of appeal for a court-martial is the civilian Supreme Court.

That I don't know. I'd have to look that up. Certainly isn't taught to enlisted.

Looked it up. The appellate court for cases arising out of the military is civilian . It is the The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services. Here is their intro:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Cases on the Court’s docket address a broad range of legal issues, including constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, criminal procedure, ethics, administrative law, and national security law. Decisions by the Court are subject to direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In other words, when a military case is appealed, the jurisdiction moves from the executive to the judicial branch. Except for the power to pardon, it becomes a judicial matter.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Have there been any orders given that are unlawful that a solder should defy? That accusation keeps being tossed about.

Yes, the murder of civilians in the Caribbean. If they are not all pardoned, I expect Hegseth and those who carried out his orders to kill all of the people on the boats suspected of drug trafficking will be tried and convicted. They still will have to avoid international travel, as these murders also violate international law.

That seems unlikely, given the statutes that govern the ability of the federal government to do basically anything if it's "fighting terrorism".

Have you not heard of "Universal Jurisdiction " in cases involving war crimes?

[JohnH]

Yes, the murder of civilians in the Caribbean. If they are not all pardoned, I expect Hegseth and those who carried out his orders to kill all of the people on the boats suspected of drug trafficking will be tried and convicted. They still will have to avoid international travel, as these murders also violate international law.

That seems unlikely, given the statutes that govern the ability of the federal government to do basically anything if it's "fighting terrorism".

Have you not heard of "Universal Jurisdiction " in cases involving war crimes?

America generally is not interested in allowing other countries or institutions to exercise sovereignty over itself.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That seems unlikely, given the statutes that govern the ability of the federal government to do basically anything if it's "fighting terrorism".

Have you not heard of "Universal Jurisdiction " in cases involving war crimes?

America generally is not interested in allowing other countries or institutions to exercise sovereignty over itself.

If they catch a war criminal they can try them, so one who is guilty of war crimes has no place to hide, except the pariah state that supports his deeds. Hence, better watch where you travel if you do such things.

[JimFoxvog]

Statement of the “Former JAGs Working Group” on Media Reports of Pentagon “No Quarter” Orders in Caribbean Boat Strikes

Excerpts:

"The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both."

"• If the U.S. military operation to interdict and destroy suspected narcotrafficking vessels is a 'non-international armed conflict,' as the Trump Administration suggests, orders to 'kill everybody,' which can reasonably be regarded as an order to give 'no quarter,' and to 'double-tap' a target in order to kill survivors, are clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes.

• If the U.S. military operation is not an armed conflict of any kind, these orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder."

Final sentence: "Again, the bottom line is that, since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are 'patently illegal,' anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both."

Their full statement (.pdf) is available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content ... tement.pdf

[JohnH]

If they catch a war criminal they can try them, so one who is guilty of war crimes has no place to hide, except the pariah state that supports his deeds. Hence, better watch where you travel if you do such things.

It is beyond absurd to call the U.S. a "pariah state". Generally speaking, most other countries are very interested in trade deals and diplomatic relations with the U.S. and would not try to do something as silly as attempt to prosecute American citizens for "war crimes".

If you disagree, perhaps you could point me me to the international prosecutions of people like Bush and Obama or those in their administrations.

[Bootstrap]

He says it has. Do you think he was lying?

Many people think he's a habitual liar. Do you think he was telling the truth on this issue for once?

No liar always lies. Even habitual liars tell the truth when it serves their interests.

[JohnH]

He says it has. Do you think he was lying?

Many people think he's a habitual liar. Do you think he was telling the truth on this issue for once?

No liar always lies. Even habitual liars tell the truth when it serves their interests.

It would be interesting for one to claim a politician only tells the truth when it is convenient for one to do so. I guess that’s a new rhetorical device though.