One of the generals in the chain of command that the orders were issued under has resigned. There is at least a small chance he will be impeached, assuming we win TN special election and we get just one defector in the house. And that is looking ever more likely.

those 2 individuals, which is an obvious illegal order and against every maritime law.

If that recording actually exists, then it needs to be leaked for all Americans, and the world, to listen to and prove what a fucking liar and war criminal Pedonald, Kegsbreath and those that followed this illegal action, up to and including the person who actually pulled the trigger.

This was leaked and became the reason for the Democratic video about illegal orders? With luck, those Dems will have a source.

He replaced Admiral Holsey as head of SOCOM who suddenly resigned. I think Holsey saw the set up coming.

I think those 2 nitwits, pedo Trump and drunk Hegseth, set Bradley up to take the fall for their war crimes. Also, there's bound to be lower ranking officers and a few enlisted men they can blame it on too. As they say, sh*t rolls down hill.

I would not want to be an officer at SOCOM right now.

at least some people tried to resist instead of just submitting to evil.

There will not be a successful impeachment of Trump or any member of his criminal gang.

Quote: "he is cast away and spends 28 years
on a remote tropical desert island near the
coasts of Venezuela and Trinidad, encountering
cannibals, captives, and mutineers before being
rescued."

I wish you were correct. Maybe I'm a pessimist. Maybe I'm just tired of being Charlie Browned by the US Justice system.

Whiskey Pete Kegsbreath (WPK) is totally not fucked. Since we're not at war, there's no "war crime". Which means it's murder. No problem, WPKs' buddy Donny Two Scoops (POTUS) can just issue a preemptive pardon for 'Ole WPK.

Case closed.

Let's say there are a bunch of Republicans in Congress who are already afraid of a wave election with voting beginning in 10 months. And let's say they are afraid Trump already has them in serious trouble and will only get worse. And let's say none of them know any way to explain to their constituents why we are invading Venezuela and turning Ukraine over to Putin.

Some of them might crank up the heat. They may not have the courage to push the Alzheimer President out, but they very easily could force the drunken Secretary out.

Meanwhile, there are high officers who knowingly followed obviously illegal orders. They might have a very good incentive to come clean now or otherwise risk criminal punishment in 2029.

It is not hard to imagine lots of people standing in line to help throw the drunk guy under the bus. It is actually hard to see who would want to defend the guy at this stage.

But it all depends on Republicans doing something right. I'm not ready to bet my house on that.

On this part, "They might have a very good incentive to come clean now or otherwise risk criminal punishment in 2029."
There's NOT going to be any punishment for anyone in a high position, especially an officer. The Dems have no stomach for doing anything that requires GUTS. They couldn't even hang on for the shutdown they were winning. No guts, no balls in the lot of them.

No. Thanks.

Better toe the party line! We don't like free thought around these parts, right?

I'll support who I like. I'll criticize anyone who is doing wrong regardless of the party.

The fascists have been able to incrementally control practically all the levers of government mainly because so many Dems were willing to just sit back and wait until the "electoral pendulum" swung back our way. Well, there never has been a "pendulum effect" For 50+ years, each swing to the right is matched by a smaller return to the left, with the net effect being that all those "centerists" being completely out of step with what average working Americans really want out of our society and our government. There is a name for this: the "Overton Window".

100%

Are you lost?

Are you lost?

that there was a second, very deliberate attack, which is murder under US law.

And then Trump threw Hegseth under the bus by saying "I wouldn't have wanted a second attack." This is a clear indication that Trump cannot stop the COngress from hitting this hard, so Trump is sacrificing Hegseth.

A person doesn't have to be Nostradamus to have seen this coming. Trump has never taken responsibility for a single thing his entire life. I doubt that Trump had to give Hegseth any specific orders of "no survivors. That would have been understood implicitly. So Hegseth is screwed -- let us hope it ruins him for good.

Trump: "I knew nuuuuu-thing" (in his best Sgt Shultz voice)

Hegseth: "Second strike. Couldn't have been me. I was at the bar. Everybody saw me at the bar. I have an alabi. It must have been Adm. Bradley"

And if I have to make it my life’s mission to keep this issue in the news so Kegsbreath is held accountable. Of all of trumps loser appointees… I loathe that frat boy drunk loser!!!! He had ZERO business in that position.

Tribe is Whistling Dixie.

It’s getting the point where men and women in uniform are going to do something about it. Maybe even SEAL Team 6 since he’s sullied their reputation. I’m pretty sure there are no honorable people watching his 6, and likely no competent people either.

at the Nuremberg Trials tried to declare that they were just "following orders"..........ask how well THAT worked out as a defense for them.......................

In Vietnam, to avoid calling it a WAR, as I recall, they called it a "Police Action", at least for awhile......
By not calling it a war, they got around having to have congress declare it as a war???????Avoiding the War declaration act where congress had to be notified within three days of declaring war, and also approve of it, or the actions had to be ceased immediately.......????????

Anyone out there know more about this, or what I am talking about??????????

IF the Dems can manage to take the House next year then they can hold hearings, I suppose. Still and IF and still another year out.

If you are in the military, obviously you don't have a problem with following orders. When Big Law and Big University with their gazillions of dollars can't muster the strength to say no to this obvious imbecile, no military guy or girl who needs a career is going to take up the flag. Depending on the military to get us out of this is a fool's errand.

They tried to throw under the bus today was a longtime member of DEVGRU. Small community and they won't be happy about it.

Who flew off 'small boys'. (Destroyers frigates and cruisers). He quit rather than follow Hegseth's orders. Now the Trump crime syndicate is making him the fall guy. BTW - The Admiral is a 'person of color'. I'm sure no MAGAbot will scream "DEI!"

Kegbreath's days are numbered.......

The Prohibition of Ordering Denial of Quarter or Denying Quarter
Assuming solely for the sake of discussion that there was a non-international armed conflict at the time of the Sept. 2 strikes, the most relevant LOAC rule applicable to the Hegseth and Bradley orders is the “denial of quarter,” i.e., an instruction not to allow any survivors (see, e.g., Working Group of Former Judge Advocates Generals’ statement on the Hegseth order).

The status of the prohibition on the denial of quarter (and on ordering or threatening its denial) was settled well over a century ago. It is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts as a matter of customary international law (ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law study, Rule 46). This is so with respect to its status as a violation of LOAC entailing the responsibility of the State concerned and as a war crime by the individuals issuing orders to deny quarter or carrying them out. We need not repeat here the major international texts and tribunal decisions that support that conclusion. One of us (Schmitt) walked through all of the relevant texts, from the U.S. Civil War’s Lieber Code to the present, in a 2023 essay concerning a “kill everyone” order by the head of Russia’s Wagner Group (co-authored with LtCol John Tramazzo).

Here, suffice it to note that the DoD Law of War Manual is categorical: “It is … prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations.” The Manual further emphasizes that the rule “also applies during non-international armed conflict” (§ 5.4.7).

A closely related prohibition implicated in the Sept. 2 strikes, which also applies in both international and non-international armed conflict, is on attacking those who are hors de combat, a condition that includes those who are “defenseless” because they are shipwrecked (see ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law study, rule 47 and related practice). As the DoD Law of War Manual explains (§ 5.9.4),

Shipwrecked combatants include those who have been shipwrecked from any cause…. Persons who have been incapacitated by … shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack. In order to receive protection as hors de combat, the person must be wholly disabled from fighting.

The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations similarly provides, “Intentional attack on a combatant who is known to be hors de combat constitutes a grave breach of the law of armed conflict” (§ 8.2.3). Indeed, as noted in the Newport Manual on the Law of Naval Warfare published by the U.S. Naval War College’s Stockton Center, Geneva Convention II

sets forth a legal framework for the humane treatment and protection of victims of armed conflict at sea. The Convention requires parties to the conflict to, inter alia, respect and protect individuals falling within the scope of the Convention “who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked.” Parties to a conflict are thus required, after each engagement and without delay, to “take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick,” without discriminating between their own and enemy personnel.

To be clear, there is no exception to the prohibition on attacking those who are hors de combat due to being shipwrecked because they might escape or otherwise receive rescue assistance from their forces. The only basis for treating them as subject to continued attack is if they are, in fact, not hors de combat because they continue to fight.

Doctrine and Prosecutions on Denial of Quarter
This analysis of the LOAC rules merits being supplemented with three additional points. First, each U.S. servicemember has an obligation to report evidence that any U.S. operation potentially involved killing shipwrecked survivors or a denial of quarter. According to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (§ 6.3; see also DoD Directive 2311.01):

All military and U.S. civilian employees, contractor personnel, and subcontractors assigned to or accompanying a DOD component must report through their chain of command all reportable incidents, including those involving allegations of non-DOD personnel having violated the law of war.

Examples of incidents that “must be reported” include: (1) “Offenses against the Wounded, the Sick, [and] Survivors of Sunken Ships,” such as “willfully killing”; (2) “Other Offenses against Survivors of Sunken Ships,” including, “when military interests permit, failure to search out, collect, make provision for the safety of, or to care for survivors;” and (3) “Denial of quarter, unless bad faith is reasonably suspected” (§ 6.3).

Second, a landmark 1921 case emerging out of World War I clearly set forth the rule that killing shipwrecked survivors of a boat strike is a war crime and that superior orders offer no defense to such conduct, because such orders must be disobeyed. In the Llandovery Castle case, the Imperial Court of Justice considered a June 1918 incident after a German U-boat sank the Llandovery Castle, a Canadian hospital ship. The U-boat Commander claimed he thought the ship was carrying American airmen. In convicting the defendants for firing on the survivors who were in lifeboats, the court noted that by that point, the international legal prohibition on killing survivors of a maritime attack was manifest.

The firing on the boats was an offence against the law of nations. In war on land the killing of unarmed enemies is not allowed (compare the Hague regulations as to war on land, para. 23(c)), similarly in war at sea, the killing of shipwrecked people, who have taken refuge in life-boats, is forbidden.
…

The fact that his deed is a violation of international law must be well-known to the doer, apart from acts of carelessness, in which careless ignorance is a sufficient excuse. In examining the question of the existence of this knowledge, the ambiguity of many of the rules of international law, as well as the actual circumstances of the case, must be borne in mind, because in war time decisions of great importance have frequently to be made on very insufficient material. This consideration, however, cannot be applied to the case at present before the court. The rule of international law, which is here involved, is simple and is universally known. No possible doubt can exist with regard to the question of its applicability. (emphasis added)

Even I knew the basics of this, from a coastguard small boat handling course back in the 80s.

Is it from the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual then? I couldn't wade through the whole thing.

I do think trump and Hegseth's military convention of generals was to gage who would follow their commands, or the rules of war.

I'm bookmarking this tread for your post.

alive who could testify against them in a court of law .

when he’s hanging from a noose, and not a second before that.

with how many balls of shit-lies they can juggle at one time. His sealions are getting weary, his trolls boring, and his lies are getting bigger and heavier with each passing day. This will be a messy, messy pile of low-syllable crap after all is said and done and the nation will spend the next three generations apologizing to the planet for our actions over the next three years.

DOJ is a mess, having had many resignations over ethical issues. Lawyers have licenses that they have to protect and they cannot engage in unethical behavior and stay in the profession.

yes, he'd be fucked.

However, in this corrupt administration (and doesn't the word corrupt seem be inadequate at this point?) he'll probably get a "presidential medal of freedumb" or something.

The one with the iron bars, stainless steel commode, and no windows

Disagree.

Trump’s department of injustice will never prosecute.

It’s one of many things that makes the fascist Trump regime so lawless and dangerous.

rsdsharp wasn't saying he'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but rather he'll be prosecuted to the extent that Trump wants him to be prosecuted, i.e. probably not at all., so you don't really disagree. Though there is also the chance that Trump decides to throw him under the bus. In which case, he can be prosecuted. Either way, nothing is going to happen for the "right" reasons.

No one disagrees that Hegseth is committing war crimes – indeed, murder.

But in a lawless, criminal regime such as Trump’s, justice will never prevail.

I have to wonder if he's not being used as a smoke screen to protect Steve Witkoff, who has been caught acting sspiciously like a double agent, counseling the Russians on how to deal with Fatso and pretending the demand for surrender they're passing off as a peace deal is his own work.

In fact,most of the peopleThiel put into place seem to be making sure Demented Donny never hears anything but the Russian side of things, and that includes JD Vance.

(Ooooh, Times Radio agrees with me on that. The question is what we're going to do about those snakes after we GOTV)

That order are guilty too.

All the Generals and high-ranking officers have seen Hogsbreath for themselves now, and they all KNOW what tool he is.
There's nobody in the military who thinks otherwise. Nobody has his back now, he's on his own.

implies that. He is making an observation , not a prediction.

And Trump certainly does not care how many Venezuelans he has the military kill. None of these murders are legal.

A Nation of laws, what are we?

Was the Admiral getting thrown under the bus. Pete will just deny and pin the blame on him. Poor Mitch. Two months on the job and already done for.

U-boat commander Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was shot for killing the survivors of a sunk target.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11664318

On this day, November 30, 1945, U-boat commander Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was shot for killing the survivors of a sunk target.

Eck's crime was in war, not some meaningless statement pretending war.

As far as military exigencies permit, after each naval engagement, all possible measures
should be taken without delay to search for and collect the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, and
to recover the dead.70
13.3.5 Surrender by Enemy Vessels. The general rules on the protection of persons hors
de combat, including the rule prohibiting the attack of persons who have surrendered, also apply
to enemy vessels.71
In particular, it is forbidden to make an enemy vessel the object of attack if
it has genuinely, clearly, and unconditionally surrendered, in circumstances in which it is feasible
to accept such surrender.72
Once an enemy vessel has clearly indicated a readiness to surrender, the attack must be
discontinued.73
Indicia of surrender by vessels may include:
• hauling down her flag;
• hoisting a white flag;
74
• surfacing (in the case of submarines);
75
• stopping engines and responding to the attacker’s signals;
76 or
70 Refer to § 7.4.1 (GWS-Sea Obligation Regarding the Search, Collection, and Affirmative Protection of the
Wounded, Sick, Shipwrecked, and Dead).
71 Refer to § 5.9.3 (Persons Who Have Surrendered).
72 2007 NWP ¶8.6.1 (“It is forbidden, however, to target an enemy warship or military aircraft that in good faith
unambiguously and effectively conveys a timely offer of surrender.”); 1955 NWIP ¶511c (“It is forbidden to refuse
quarter to any enemy who has surrendered in good faith. In particular, it is forbidden either to continue to attack
enemy warships and military aircraft which have clearly indicated a readiness to surrender or to fire upon the
survivors of such vessels and aircraft who no longer have the means to defend themselves.”).
73 2007 NWP 1-14M ¶8.6.1 (“Once an enemy warship has clearly indicated a readiness to surrender, such as by
hauling down her flag, by hoisting a white flag, by surfacing (in the case of submarines), by stopping engine

It came out during…you know…the black guy’s administration. So it obviously doesn’t count.




(/s, of course, but the publication was dated 2015.)

Nothing is going to happen to Whisky Pete. Absolutely nothing.

It’s all a pipe dream thinking that anyone will ever be held accountable for any of this.

will it? He could go to Leavenworth

and unless the folks executing these orders are prosecuted they will just keep following the illegal orders.

It was oriented around taking care of POWs, not mistakenly "taking care" of POWs by killing them. The Army gave us classes that it was an illegal order for a superior to order us to kill prisoners or defenseless combatants.