this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
329 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26574 readers
2057 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There is an increasing apprehension among service members that they may be asked to carry out an illegal order, amid reports Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered troops to “kill everybody” in a boat strike in September.

The concerns, reflected in an uptick in calls to the Orders Project — which provides free legal advice to military personnel — come from the likes of staff officers involved in planning the strikes on supposed drug-carrying boats and those in charge of designating those on the vessels as a threat in order to carry out such attacks.

Even as a reported Justice Department classified memo from this summer preemptively argued that U.S. troops involved in the strikes would not be in legal jeopardy, service members appear far more concerned than usual that the U.S. military may be opening them up to legal harm, according to Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, which runs the Orders Project.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] khepri@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yep, and I'm certain some of them knew exactly what an obvious illegal order this was. You don't do follow-up strikes on enemies who are disabled and out of the fight. That is basic, basic shit. It's cruel, unnecessary, and dishonorable. That's gang and terrorist shit and we're supposed to be better than our enemies about this stuff or what's the point.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's gang and terrorist shit and we're supposed to be better than our enemies about this stuff or what's the point.

Uh... on this particular war crime I have about twenty years of US history for you and you are not going to like it. To respond to your rhetorical question, the point is cheap and profitable oil contracts to increase shareholder value.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is a distinction between what Hegseth did and what Obama did. Not a good one, but maybe it would result in action against Hegseth.

The purpose of Obama’s drone strikes was murder. So if they didn’t get the murder they were looking for, a second strike was necessary. I imagine they announced a terrorist was killed and everybody was happy.

The purpose of Hegseth’s murder was to destroy a drug boat. Once the boat was destroyed, any additional strike goes against the purpose of the mission.

Anyway, I have no confidence anything will come of this, but I am happy it is making waves. Maybe it will enter mainstream news and will force them to quit the strikes.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

As someone else pointed out... Its actually the example they use of an illegal order in the DOD manual.

collapsed inline media

Page 1117 18.3.2.1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23892053-dod-law-of-war-manual-june-2015-updated-july-2023/

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

OMG RTFM Hegseth!

Also, I say Hegseth and we all know Trump is right there, but he’s already thrown him under the bus by saying he never approved of a second strike.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

I honestly don't know how much Trump actually cares about the details. He just wants Maduro out of there and an agreement that his cronies get a big helping of their oil profits.

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh for sure I'm not saying we haven't been doing the same thing in the Middle East for literal decades at this point. Mosques, weddings, kids, civilians. I guess a double tap on some anonymous drowning civilians, from a nation were aren't engaged in combat with, who might have had drugs in their boat, and who were disabled and in the water and posed no possible threat, just hits even harder than a lot of the other ridiculous terrible shit we've done.

[–] ronl2k@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why would innocent civilians be on a drug boat?

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

omg so true, changed my mind, blow up anyone anywhere on Earth of whom that question could be asked please.