Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
-
The irony is that the only person the Pentagon is trying to hold to account here is the retired astronaut and war hero who said that illegal orders like this shouldn't be followed.
@mattblaze so so so many unexplored ironies of this circus.
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze Not sure if this technically qualifies as perfidy because that might apply only to warfare (the possibly erroneous impression I got from the Wikipedia page). While I wouldn't want low level people punished because they couldn't afford to have a lawyer on retainer, people higher in the chain of command are a different story. Let's have a full investigation, particularly of Hegseth, and forward all the evidence to the ICC. A Trump pardon doesn't apply outside the U.S.
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
There's really no excuse for this, some teenage dudes on a boat have no fucking chance whatsofuckingever against any kind of military aircraft.
At best they could have an RPG launcher, which I'm sure the aircraft could foil easily with countermeasures.
-
@mattblaze Not sure if this technically qualifies as perfidy because that might apply only to warfare (the possibly erroneous impression I got from the Wikipedia page). While I wouldn't want low level people punished because they couldn't afford to have a lawyer on retainer, people higher in the chain of command are a different story. Let's have a full investigation, particularly of Hegseth, and forward all the evidence to the ICC. A Trump pardon doesn't apply outside the U.S.
@mattblaze One complication: they could have used a civilian-painted, slow aircraft as a "spotter" and a fighter jet for the attack. So how does perfidy work in that case?
-
@mattblaze so so so many unexplored ironies of this circus.
and Jerome Powell turns out to be the mouse that roared.....
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
If it's not war, it can't be perfidy.
Murder, straight up then.So, ignorance of perfidy may be his best defense.
Didn't our Fox Weekend genius fire all the the top lawyers at Defense?
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze as if mobsters cared about civillians, look at what Russian criminals do. They could hit some 5 storey with a ballistic missiles because of crappy CEP and claim there was a NATO base. It was a week ago in my city
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
Where is this spin coming from that any of these were war crimes?
Surely all these strikes were simply mass murders?
-There was no war going on
-The boats were civilian
-The people on the boats were civilian
-They were in international waters
-They presented no threat to anyone
-There has been no evidence presented against any of the murdered people
-All of the survivors who were arrested by US forces were quickly released without charge (strongly suggesting no sealed evidence)...why are people focusing just on potential "war crimes" by Hegseth?
*ALL* of these strikes were murders by Trump, he ordered all of them.
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze It's almost like this administration doesn't care about what words mean.
-
Where is this spin coming from that any of these were war crimes?
Surely all these strikes were simply mass murders?
-There was no war going on
-The boats were civilian
-The people on the boats were civilian
-They were in international waters
-They presented no threat to anyone
-There has been no evidence presented against any of the murdered people
-All of the survivors who were arrested by US forces were quickly released without charge (strongly suggesting no sealed evidence)...why are people focusing just on potential "war crimes" by Hegseth?
*ALL* of these strikes were murders by Trump, he ordered all of them.
p.s. Almost makes one wonder if this "was it a war crime?" spin is coming from the White House itself. Casting it as an act of war and focusing on a tiny percentage of the strikes lets Trump off the hook for ordering the strikes in the first place, and turns Hegseth into a scapegoat, protecting Trump.
Trump is a mass murderer, he ordered the deaths of innocent civilians on civilian boats in a time of peace without any reason or evidence.
Why is the media in denial about this? Why are they so eager to cover up murder?
-
Where is this spin coming from that any of these were war crimes?
Surely all these strikes were simply mass murders?
-There was no war going on
-The boats were civilian
-The people on the boats were civilian
-They were in international waters
-They presented no threat to anyone
-There has been no evidence presented against any of the murdered people
-All of the survivors who were arrested by US forces were quickly released without charge (strongly suggesting no sealed evidence)...why are people focusing just on potential "war crimes" by Hegseth?
*ALL* of these strikes were murders by Trump, he ordered all of them.
@FediThing @mattblaze Wasn't this terrorism?
-
@FediThing @mattblaze Wasn't this terrorism?
Terrorism by whom?
-
Where is this spin coming from that any of these were war crimes?
Surely all these strikes were simply mass murders?
-There was no war going on
-The boats were civilian
-The people on the boats were civilian
-They were in international waters
-They presented no threat to anyone
-There has been no evidence presented against any of the murdered people
-All of the survivors who were arrested by US forces were quickly released without charge (strongly suggesting no sealed evidence)...why are people focusing just on potential "war crimes" by Hegseth?
*ALL* of these strikes were murders by Trump, he ordered all of them.
@FediThing That’s the problem for the administration here. If this was a military conflict, they violated the laws of war. If it wasn’t, it violated international law in other ways. Either way, it was criminal.
The article I linked to explains this in some detail.
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze Doesn't there have to be a war to have a war crime? This appears to be old school piracy and murder in the service of larger goals of imperialism.
-
@FediThing That’s the problem for the administration here. If this was a military conflict, they violated the laws of war. If it wasn’t, it violated international law in other ways. Either way, it was criminal.
The article I linked to explains this in some detail.
Thanks
The article implies that Trump is committing murder:
"A broad range of specialists in laws governing the use of force have said the orders by Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth to attack the boats (were) murders."
"The administration has argued that the strikes are lawful ... because Mr. Trump decided the situation was a so-called noninternational armed conflict."
"The legitimacy of that claim is widely disputed. Still, it has put attention on ways particular attacks might have violated the laws of war."
...so why aren't the headlines about Trump committing 123 murders? Why are they instead focusing on Hegseth?
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze I think the jet was a Boeing P-8 Poseidon. Their normal colour is light enough that many people could mistake it for an airliner.
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze We already know they don’t like to play by the rules.
-
@mattblaze We already know they don’t like to play by the rules.
@TomDB I know they don’t care. The reason to call out their lawlessness isn’t because I think they care. It’s because I think YOU should care.
-
@TomDB I know they don’t care. The reason to call out their lawlessness isn’t because I think they care. It’s because I think YOU should care.
-
Aside from the war crime of attacking survivors of a shipwreck, we must now add the war crime of perfidy.
Perfidy is considered a serious crime in war because, among other things, using civilian cover for offensive missions casts suspicion on all civilians in the theatre, putting non-combatants at risk.
@mattblaze@federate.social Does that subheading feel... different, tone wise, from what the media has been doing lately?
Even accepting the Trump administration’s claim that there is an armed conflict with suspected drug runners, the laws of war bar “perfidy.”
I can't think of the last time... or the FIRST time, for that matter, that I've seen the NYT come from a position of doubt re: the administration's claims while also stating that it's a crime.
(well, "the laws of war bar..." isn't exactly "this is a crime", but I'd still say that feels like a substantial shift in tone)
