636
White House throws commanding admiral under the bus in killing of alleged drug boat survivors (www.huffpost.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the apparent war crime was legal even as she said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth knew nothing about it.

The White House on Monday shifted the blame for killing the survivors of a U.S. military strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and onto the commanding admiral.

Killing survivors of a destroyed vessel is literally an example of a war crime in the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual reads.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, nevertheless, repeatedly stated that it was legal – even as she further claimed, as Donald Trump did Sunday, that Hegseth was unaware that it had happened.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

It being law in the US is highly questionable. But again, the op wasn't talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual. And while the manual is "A" interpretation of international law, it isn't the only one. So he can't be tried for going against the manual. If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn't what the post was about. And if they could reasonably do so, they probably would have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    It being law in the US is highly questionable.

    What? How so? Do you not know how international law works? The US legislature ratified it, which makes it a law in the US.

    But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual.

    What law do you think the "Law of War" manual is referring to? It's the Geneva Convention.

    And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual.

    This is getting a bit silly. The manual is basically all former US administrations since the ratification of the Geneva Convention specifically stating that what the current US administration did is a war crime under it. Since at the time of the incident the Geneva Convention was applicable (as it still is now since the US didn't withdraw from it) the people involved in the incident could be tried under it, possibly by the next administration.

    If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about.

    That is exactly what the post was about. What the hell are you talking about?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I get that you don't understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. They will argue about what legal precedence applies and what doesn't based on the origin of the "law".

    The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don't believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them. So no, saying someone went against the manual doesn't mean they broke the Geneva convention.

    Last, the international laws are not only the geneva convention. There were several updates. The US did not ratify ANY of the updates. So no, the geneva convention rules are not all law in the US.

    You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. [...]

    The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them.

    Oh yeah? Well the constitution seems to disagree with you (article VI):

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.

    Huh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    That part of the constitution only says that federal overrules state. Meaning states can't make laws that disagree with federal laws or treaties. By your interpretation, states would be responsible for enforcing federal laws, which is clearly not the case. This is a well established interpretation of this part of the constitution and is taught in most high schools.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Right, just ignore that "treaties" are "the supreme Law of the Land", which was the entire point of this quote.

    International treaties are in fact of the same rank as federal law and the constitution in the US as per this article, which is even broader then the mere "ratified treaties are law" statement I made earlier, which I was trying to prove here after you called me stupid and confidently incorrect for it.

    Dude, at this point let us just agree to disagree, because from my point of view you seem impervious to reason; As I probably do from yours. So let's just cut our losses and part amicably. Good bye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I didn't ignore it. It specifically means states can't make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for. But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention. So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified. Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it. So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for.

    The part you ignored is where international treaties are called "International Law", and "supreme Law of the Land"; They are therefore a law in a general sense of the word. As in "a piece of text defining rules of conduct".

    Also they are ratified by Congress (the Senate specifically), and are enforced by the contracting parties inside their own jurisdictions; So they are technically equivalent to a federal law (not just in the US, in most jurisdictions I'm aware of), insofar as de jure they have to be treated like one by the executive and judicial branches. So not sure why you are even trying to make up this distinction without a difference here.

    But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention.

    Yeah I ignored that because it's irrelevant and also incorrect. The US ratified Protocol III from 2005.

    So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified.

    The rule in question is derived from Article 12 of the Second Geneva Convention from 1949, which the US also ratified. Also you seem to be suggesting that the DoD released a manual discussing rules which don't apply to them, which seems bonkers.

    Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it.

    Not how this works. If you want to no longer be bound by a contract you cancel it. The US did not do so. They could, but they did not.

    So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.

    To you maybe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent