Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha

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.

  • finitebanjo@piefed.worldEnglish
    58·
    2 days ago

    Pete Hegseth <-- claims he didn’t authorize illegal strike

    Pete Hegseth <-- authorized illegal strike

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.worldEnglish
      44·
      2 days ago

      But there was also a whole chain of people that had to carry out those illegal orders. A whole chain of people who have the responsibility to deny carrying out illegal orders.

      • khepri@lemmy.world
        27·
        2 days ago

        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
          61·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • khepri@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 day ago

            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.

          • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
            51·
            1 day ago

            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.

              • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
                41·
                1 day ago

                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·
                  1 day 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.

              • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
                2·
                1 day ago
                Needs text alternative.

                Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

                • usability
                  • we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
                  • text search is unavailable
                  • the system can’t
                    • reflow text to varied screen sizes
                    • vary presentation (size, contrast)
                    • vary modality (audio, braille)
                • accessibility
                  • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
                  • some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
                  • users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
                  • systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
                • web connectivity
                  • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
                  • we can’t explore wider context of the original message
                • authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
                • searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
                • fault tolerance: no text fallback if
                  • image breaks
                  • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

                Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

                Pure image of text right there.

                Edit: 👍