As a Fox News contributor, he persuaded Trump to intervene in the cases of three service members accused of crimes. Would he do it again as defense secretary?

Summary

Concerns have emerged over Trump’s defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, who has criticized the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules of engagement as overly restrictive.

Critics, including retired military officers, argue his rhetoric could undermine the military’s commitment to lawful conduct and accountability.

Hegseth has supported pardons for service members convicted of war crimes and questioned the application of international laws to extremist adversaries.

While Hegseth claims he does not condone war crimes, experts worry his stance could confuse troops and erode core military principles.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 days ago

    They mean we won’t even abide by our own laws anymore. While our political elite love to yeet the military all over the world, the rank and file has been largely subject to international laws of war while overseas.

    Now they want the rank and file to have as much impunity as our political elite.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      1·
      20 hours ago

      While our political elite love to yeet the military all over the world, the rank and file has been largely subject to international laws of war while overseas.

      Has it? Because while I could be wrong kidnapping civilians and torturing them in Guantanamo, the more than a few massacres committed by the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan and of course the indiscriminate drone bombings all seem to be blatant violations of international law.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 hours ago

        The rank and file aren’t doing Guantanamo. And the reason we know about the war crimes that have happened at that level is because the military prosecuted them. The US isn’t refusing the ICC to protect it’s soldiers. It’s the politicians.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          1·
          2 hours ago

          Twelve soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees.

          From the Wikipedia article on Abu Gharib. If this counts as prosecution then the IDF also “prosecutes” its war criminals. Where’s the punishment for the systematic rape, torture and murder? These aren’t crimes that should be settled by twelve rank and file soldiers getting a slap on the wrist. By the way, we know about these war crimes because newspapers reported on them and publicized them, and that’s why the US army “prosecuted” them. Your knowledge of US violations of international law seems to be very whitewashed.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            1·
            36 minutes ago

            Abu ghraib specifically was because of a general officer’s investigation. And it was 12 soldiers because they were the idiots that got mixed up with CIA Contractors doing most of the stupid stuff.