Just a reminder, this thread is on the investigation into Mark Kelly. We do have a Pit thread on the government’s attacks on claimed drug boats:
And a FQ thread on the general topic:
A dedicated P&E thread for that subject would be fine as well (hint, hint), but let’s keep this thread on topic. I don’t argue that drift happens, and speculation about Republican’s actually holding the administration responsible IS on topic, but wanted to limit the sidetrack as much as possible. Just a note to keep us on topic, nothing specifically directed at the last 5 posts.
For me, the relevance of Hegs-whatever’s getting tied up in blowback over the kill them all orders is that it could ensnarl him in such controversy, defensiveness, and perhaps even ejection under the bus that his attacks on Kelly get totally derailed, and the whole stupid thing goes away.
I think the last post is smart post and quite relevant to the thread.
For Hegseth to have Kelly convicted, military prosecutors and judges, at least some of them, must have a high level of fear as to what will happen if they defy the SecDef. If the SecDef is weakened by congressional censure or similar, the military judges will be more likely to do what they know is right.
Not an earful, but rather a measured response. Maybe he’s being measured just in case WaPo has a mistake in their story. But it now looks to be not just crossing a line, but a chasm. Being willing to take prisoners, and not firing on the shipwrecked, are probably the easiest lines to remember and draw in terms of war crimes against combatants. U.S. forces may have violated these principles a few times in World War II against Japan, but that was in combat, with the psychology inevitable there. This September 2 situation was one in which Hegseth, Admiral Bradley, and even people under Bradley, were almost surely sitting with perfect safety in offices.
This shows how important the video was. It will need repetition.
When orders so manifestly illegal come down the chain, everyone in the chain is responsible to resist. That, apparently, no one did, when they were at no physical risk — just career risk — is super disturbing.
Didn’t dickhead Kegsbreath dickhead boss say, possibly several times, regarding the narcoterrorist sham, that “we’ll kill them all” or something to that effect? Rhetorical question, I know he did, I just can’t wade through all the shite to find that particular quote. I recall being a bit surprised that it wasn’t called out, but then I remembered we don’t really have too many journalists anymore.
Yep, the Allies condemned some Germans for firing on shipwreck survivors. That is a total no-no. (but sometimes in the heat of battle, bad things occur, but this was not in the heat of battle)
Sorry for the AI but this is not the main point- “The Peleus trial (1945), not the main Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, was a post-war British military trial in Hamburg that resulted in the conviction and execution of the commander of the German submarine U-852, Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, and two others for war crimes.Eck’s U-boat crew attacked the survivors of a sunken Greek freighter, the Peleus, by firing on their lifeboats and rafts. Eck and two other crew members were sentenced to death and executed by firing squad in November 1945, though the main Nuremberg trials were held separately. “
Mind you, it is legal- under international law to sink Pirate ships in International Waters-they are considered “hostis humani generis” (an enemy of all mankind). So, the drug boats are a stretch. But not survivors clinging to a wreck.
If anyone has not yet seen it, Senator Kelly gave a damn good speech about Donnie and Pete’s fuckery. Surprisingly, it was aired in its entirety on Fox, though I imagine you can find it online.
I want to see more of this. He’s being very careful not to shame the military, and showing restraint, but he’s coming a lot closer to ‘telling it like it is’ than any of our useless Press.
I bolded manifestly illegal. As you know, that is the standard to refuse an order.
For everyone else, it just means it has to be extremely obvious that what you are ordering/doing is illegal. Shooting POWs in the head. Killing civilians in a village. Etc. In no way, would anyone get in trouble for doing something technically, even 100%, illegal, unless it was extremely obvious. The military can’t run that way. That would be legit pushback to Kelly saying refuse illegal orders. The manifestly illegal standard is what would a reasonable person (not military) do in that situation. You and I are reasonable people and we can judge whether something is obviously right or wrong.
The order to strike a small speed boat is probably manifestly illegal. There is no armed conflict. It should not be ordered at a high level. The person who flies the drone and pushes the button/carries out the order, can presume the order is legal and only should not do it unless it is over the top obviously illegal. That’s a bit tougher, but certainly judgeable.
The second strike, you can’t order it nor carry out that order. Any reasonable person would conclude those “combatants” are out of the fight/no longer a threat and then it’s just murder. Someone will go down for this one. Now that it’s publicly known, the military wouldn’t want that to be excused because it will get our military killed when they are out of the fight.
Yes, even this administration isn’t trying to defend this one, and instead they’re trying to pin it on a scapegoat.
To me, this is exactly what Kelly and others were talking about. This pretty much deflates any effort to say their message was wrong. Nobody can say, “What orders?” Because that is clearly an order nobody can obey.
(Well, I see Megyn Kelly and maybe other RW talking heads trying to justify it, bit nobody in the administration at least.)
That DoD War Manual says pretty much exactly that.
Subordinates are not required to screen the orders of superiors for questionable points of legality, and may, absent specific knowledge to the contrary, presume that orders have been lawfully issued
It says they may presume it’s lawful, meaning they won’t get in trouble for doing so. But what if they decide it’s unlawful and refuse? Will they get in trouble for that? is the question.
Robert Anton Wilson suggested: Take a private and have two officers of equal rank, one commanding him to stand and the other simultaneously commanding him to sit. Presumably the subject will wig out.
Almost certainly yes. They may ultimately be exonerated, but there will be short term hell to pay. The Marine Captain who taught me about illegal orders told us something to the effect of “you’d better be right and, even if you are right, it’s probably the end of your career”.
