Pete Hegseth lashes out at 'kill them all' report on boat strikes

[Nostra]

Fishing boats overloaded with 55gal drums of whale chum I suppose?

Cartel Bass Boat....

 

[Hollie]

Fishing boats overloaded with 55gal drums of whale chum I suppose?

Strange that a fishing boat would have 3 marine outboards each costing about $45,000.

Strange we don’t see any fishing gear.

 

[Billiejeens]

Funny thing is that I literally predicted this exact scenario in the beginning of the week in almost all it's particulars, when the argument was., " Trump didn't give any illegal orders."

Which everyone agreed with.
Especially the seditious six.

 

[Billiejeens]

There is drone footage of strikes

We saw the first attack

Why haven’t we seen footage of the second?

Why do you think?

 

[Billiejeens]

Did you also take issue with the killing of Osama?

Why not?

The Osama who's dead body we never saw?

 

[citygator]

YO...HomieA...what do you think about when ObamaChrist executed that Muslim-American and his 16 year old son ?

He said him reviewing the case file was due process...our President made me proud that day.



I don't know WTF you're talking about...your post got lost in the flood.

Dude...2nd hand info wouldn't hold up in court but the satanic MSM will quote even knowing that.

Whatever your smoking...I suggest you put it down and step back.

It has been reported by someone close to the source citygator admitted MTF was right.

The report was not denied. Trump is now blaming Hegseth for the murder and distancing himself after being informed of the risk by his lawyers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions (1977, supplementing the 1949 conventions) defines “shipwrecked” clearly: “persons, whether military or civilian, who are in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of misfortune affecting them or the vessel or aircraft carrying them and who refrain from any act of hostility.”

"misfortune affecting them".
This refers to hitting a reef or running aground, not an attack on a vessel by a military.

It's also bullshit in several other contexts
Specifically (under section 3.2.1 “Assistance to Persons, Ships, and Aircraft in Distress”(navy law)) it notes that, to the extent that it can be done “without serious danger to his ship or crew,” a commanding officer “shall proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress.”

This does not in any way necessarily preclude a follow-up attack on a crippled vessel before taking off the crew.

If you are right, then the Japanese navy broke the laws of war when they torpedoed and sank the crippled Yorktown without first taking off her remaining crew after the battle of Midway.

Try some more guardhouse lawyering.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is drone footage of strikes

We saw the first attack

Why haven’t we seen footage of the second?

What second?

 

[Zavulon]

**** the UN.

Or the UN will **** America.

 

[Billiejeens]

The report was not denied. Trump is now blaming Hegseth for the murder and distancing himself after being informed of the risk by his lawyers.

None of that is accurate, troll

 

[forkup]

"misfortune affecting them".
This refers to hitting a reef or running aground, not an attack on a vessel by a military.


This does not in any way necessarily preclude a follow-up attack on a crippled vessel before taking off the crew.

If you are right, then the Japanese navy broke the laws of war when they torpedoed and sank the crippled Yorktown without first taking off her remaining crew after the battle of Midway.

Try some more guardhouse lawyering.

What a bizarre hill to die on. “Misfortune doesn’t count if we caused it”? That’s not how the law of armed conflict works, and it’s definitely not how the maritime rescue obligation works. There’s no carve-out that magically turns shipwrecked people into fair-game targets just because you lit the boat on fire yourself.

And dragging in Yorktown is just embarrassing. A WWII submarine that can’t surface under air cover without getting blown out of the water is not remotely comparable to a modern U.S. special operations unit knowingly observing survivors in the water during peacetime and ordering a second strike. Different era, different capabilities, different legal framework, and yes, the Japanese were prosecuted for lots of violations of the laws of war, so maybe not the argument you think it is.

But this is the real tell: every time the facts come up, no war, no self-defense, survivors clearly visible, second strike deliberately ordered, you immediately run back to imaginary loopholes that would make it okay to kill people once they’re no longer a threat.

If your entire position boils down to “there must be some technicality that lets us execute people,” then your not giving a legal analysis. You're just describing moral rot and dressing it up like it passed the bar. But only if the bar exam can be passed by a toddler.

 

[Nostra]

Or the UN will **** America.

How?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What a bizarre hill to die on. “Misfortune doesn’t count if we caused it”? That’s not how the law of armed conflict works, and it’s definitely not how the maritime rescue obligation works. There’s no carve-out that magically turns shipwrecked people into fair-game targets just because you lit the boat on fire yourself.

And dragging in Yorktown is just embarrassing. A WWII submarine that can’t surface under air cover without getting blown out of the water is not remotely comparable to a modern U.S. special operations unit knowingly observing survivors in the water during peacetime and ordering a second strike. Different era, different capabilities, different legal framework, and yes, the Japanese were prosecuted for lots of violations of the laws of war, so maybe not the argument you think it is.

But this is the real tell: every time the facts come up, no war, no self-defense, survivors clearly visible, second strike deliberately ordered, you immediately run back to imaginary loopholes that would make it okay to kill people once they’re no longer a threat.

If your entire position boils down to “there must be some technicality that lets us execute people,” then your not giving a legal analysis. You're just describing moral rot and dressing up like it passed the bar.

Could you post the video of the second strike, so we can put those arguments into context?

 

[Care4all]

Could you post the video of the second strike, so we can put those arguments into context?

Could you have Hegseth release it for us to see? He has not denied the video exists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What a bizarre hill to die on. “Misfortune doesn’t count if we caused it”?

"Shipwrecked" has a specific context; your argument tries to apply the term where it does not belong, and thus renders it unsound..
The SS Minnow was shipwrecked.
Yorktown was not.

There is certainly a responsibility to rescue survivors of a military engagement on the water, if practical and can be done w/o undue danger to the rescuing forces, but responsibility to rescue comes -after- the engagement, not during.
In the instance before us, the engagement was not over; as such there was no duty to rescue.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It was an unarmed, civilian boat. There is no mention in the UNCLOS a word about "terroristic organisations", and there was no decision of UN SC about equality of Venezuela's cocaine clippers and terrorists. And military ships, according UNCLOS, has no right to attack unarmed civilian ships except only three cases: piracy, slave-trading, misusage of flag.
If we add permission to attack unarmed terrorists' ships in high seas, Russia will attack yachts of several American billionaires who sponsored FBK (declared as terrorist organisation in Russia, but legal in the USA), or, say, Muslim-brothers.

There is a Maritime Security Regime in UNCLOS that allows for actions to stop smuggling and terrorist activities in international waters. If the vessel has no flag or formal registration and they are not in territorial waters they are fair game.

"Complications arise when a navy, coast guard, coastwatch, maritime police force, or other agency wishes to intercept (or 'interdict') vessels suspected of carrying out illegal activities, such as piracy against ships, smuggling or there is potential for an act of terrorism. If a suspect vessel is registered, or 'flagged', with a state other than the state of the pursuing authorities, then in most cases the pursuing authorities must gain the permission of the 'flag' state prior to boarding."

Maritime Security Regimes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

Could you have Hegseth release it for us to see? He has not denied the video exists.

He has also never denied that video of the green cheese minimg operation on the dark side of the moon exists.

I hope you are not about to tell me that this whole supposed second drone strike we are debating is completely unsupported by any evidence?

Really?

You guys and your pranks!

 

[forkup]

"Shipwrecked" has a specific context; your argument tries to apply the term where it does not belong, and thus renders it unsound..
The SS Minnow was shipwrecked.
Yorktown was not.

There is certainly a responsibility to rescue survivors of a military engagement on the water, if practical and can be done w/o undue danger to the rescuing forces, but responsibility to rescue comes -after- the engagement, not during.
In the instance before us, the engagement was not over; as such there was no duty to rescue.

What you’re doing is inventing a “special context” that simply isn’t in the text. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I define “shipwrecked” as anyone in peril at sea due to misfortune affecting them, even if that misfortune results from an attack on the vessel. There’s no carve-out that magically turns imperiled people into fair-game targets just because you caused the peril.

A crippled and burning vessel clearly signals that the engagement is effectively over. Even historically, failing to render aid to survivors has had major consequences. Take the sinking of the Lusitania: German U-boats left civilians in peril, and the lack of rescue efforts became a casus belli that helped draw the U.S. into World War I. But according to you somehow this US says, "no no, you can simply sink a vessel, even in peacetime as long as we did the attacking, and we have no obligation to the people on the boat as long as the things afloat." The principle is simple: people in distress must be assisted whenever feasible.

Modern U.S. doctrine echoes this. NWP 1‑14M, the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, makes clear that commanders have an obligation to rescue persons in peril at sea when it can be done without undue danger to the rescuing forces. Peacetime or wartime, combat or non-combat, this is not optional, it is recognized law and customary practice.

 

[Seymour Flops]

According to CNN, "Trump expressed confidence Hegseth did not order second strike."

Um . . . duh?

Who on here believes he did?

The commander at the scene called, emailed, or texted the Secretary of Defense to describe the situation at the scene and ask "so, uh, what now, Chief-a-rooney?"

Show of hands if you believe that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I define “shipwrecked” as anyone in peril at sea due to misfortune affecting them, even if that misfortune results from an attack on the vessel.

Cite / Copy / Paste

A crippled and burning vessel clearly signals that the engagement is effectively over.

To you.
If the commander on the scene judges the target(s) need additional attention in pursuit of the mission, they are within their power to continue the engagement. That the target might be on fire and unmoving does not change this.

Even historically, failing to render aid to survivors has had major consequences...

Responsibility to rescue comes -after- the engagement, not during.
This engagement was not over.