More than 80 people killed in campaign that law-of-war experts have labeled extrajudicial murder

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to leave no survivors behind as Donald Trump’s administration launched the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.

On September 2, U.S. military personnel fired a missile striking a vessel in the Caribbean that carried 11 people accused of trafficking drugs into the United States.

When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.

  • HailSeitan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    6 days ago

    If anybody is still under the impression that someone somewhere in the chain of command might refuse illegal orders, this tells you everything you need to know

    • Fit_Series_573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 days ago

      There was the one high profile commander who stepped down du to this. Wish more would follow suit since it’s technically illegal for all involved to disobey orders unless they all do so collectively.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      There’s a big difference between this and shooting at unarmed American citizens who are legally exercising their 1st Amendment Rights.

        • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yes. If Americans haven’t proved they’re generally racist and Nationalistic, I don’t know what else it would take.

          It sounds like you’re trying to make a gotcha, but it’s quite fair to say a member of the military who murders Venezuelans at whim may still balk if ordered to kill white American.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Unfortunately the US doesn’t consider that one to be an illegal order. It is heartless, and unnecessary. But ever since the advent of airpower the US has maintained that planes, helicopters, and drones are not required to accept surrender because it is impractical to impossible in any given situation. So the standard is usually to keep firing. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom had notable exceptions with mass surrender instructions dropped beforehand. And again, I know that’s not reassuring. But this is why politics isn’t supposed to be a team game. This is the level of power we are making decisions on. For other things that are completely legal but most people don’t realize; heavy machineguns can absolutely be used to target individual soldiers; Flamethrowers are still 100 percent legal against military targets; You can be shot after your surrender is accepted, (I’ll expand below); You will be shot if you do not or cannot actively surrender; and Nobody respects the rule against shooting medics and medevacs.

      To expand on the most inflammatory one, the only time you are “safe” is while you are in custody. Modern combat operations move very fast and surrendering people are often left in place after their weapons are removed/destroyed. If they don’t actively surrender again to follow on forces then they are legal targets because we haven’t developed psychic powers yet. This especially matters with surrendered wounded who may not be in a condition to surrender again. Shooting bodies as you advance is legal and expected in a war. You just aren’t allowed to personally go back and shoot someone again without them presenting a new threat. With that information in mind you should also know the US military and any professional military sends multiple waves across a battlefield. It is incredibly lethal, by design.

      I say all this not to call you out but to highlight that war is a giant bag of dicks that most people outside the military are still naïve about.

      The other pressing thing here is this is an order to fire on a declared enemy, outside our border. Meaning the president signed a sheet of paper declaring them to be the enemy, Congress hasn’t thrown a flag, and they are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement. That is very clear cut to the military. If you change any one of those 3 parameters then things go to gray zone or illegal very quickly. Someone asked me some months ago while Trump was vomiting about Greenland if the military would obey that order versus an order to hunt down and kill Americans inside America. And the answer is Greenland would be fucked but those Americans are pretty safe from the military. They are not however safe from anonymous DOJ task forces and DHS.

      • Jhex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        and they’ll do similar mental gymnastics forever…

        the military won’t save you Americans

      • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        This has not been adjudicated by anyone. You can say “the US doesn’t consider it to be an illegal order”. Maybe there is some JAG letter somewhere that says helicopters are not required to accept surrender. But there is nothing that precludes trying everyone involved for war crimes.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Oh it’s definitely been US policy for decades. The videos are out there. If you want to talk about what constitutes being “out of combat” and whether the Hague would take the case it could certainly be an interesting exercise. However I doubt the Hague would take it up and neither the Department of Justice nor the military courts are going to take it up without a directive from the President. Democrats aren’t going to fall all over themselves to give that directive either though because it would mean Biden and Obama also officially presided over a regime of war crimes.

          At the end of the day it comes down to the US having X policy that lies in a gray area of international law. Which leads me to another Bush era policy that we’ve never really rescinded. If you’re not a uniformed soldier in service to an enemy country the US doesn’t consider you to have the protections that a soldier would have after surrendering. It was a neat little policy that we used to allow ourselves to torture people labeled terrorists. So yeah that’s another thing I expect to hear in the next few days, “cartel members are unlawful combatants.”

        • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Having Trump as king precludes trying any of his goons for anything.