this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
977 points (99.1% liked)

News

35724 readers
3292 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Pete Hegseth is under increasing fire for a double-tap strike, first reported by The Intercept in early September, in which the U.S. military killed two survivors of the Trump administration’s initial boat strike in the Caribbean on September 2.

The Washington Post recently reported that Hegseth personally ordered the follow-up attack, giving a spoken order “to kill everybody.” Multiple military legal experts, lawmakers, and now confidential sources within the government who spoke with The Intercept say Hegseth’s actions could result in the entire chain of command being investigated for a war crime or outright murder.

“Those directly involved in the strike could be charged with murder under the UCMJ or federal law,” said Todd Huntley, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served as a legal adviser on Joint Special Operations task forces conducting drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere, using shorthand for the Uniform Code of Military Justice. “This is about as clear of a case being patently illegal that subordinates would probably not be able to successfully use a following-orders defense.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

These idiots will never face consequences until the citizens get angry enough to start guillotine trials

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, if any significant pushback ever happens, it's not going to be 14 years of court cases and bullshit appeals. It's going to be citizens' justice.

I'm not advocating it. I'm just saying that's how it could play out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm hearing conflicting reports of the timeline.

One version has Hegseth ordering the strike, and after the first hit, there were two guys alive in the water, and Hegseth said "Kill them all," and the second strike was fired.

Another version has Hegseth saying "Kill them all" up front, and the pilot, noticing the two survivors in the water, decided to fire the second shot on his own, in accordance with Hegseth's original order, but Hegseth did not give the specific order to fire a second shot.

In the first version, Hegseth is definitely on the hook for the order to fire the second shot, which was murder, plain and simple. In the second version, the pilot unilaterally made the decision to murder the survivors, giving Hegseth weak deniability. He did order them to "Kill them all," but he could say it was an excited but rhetorical statement at the outset of the operation, but that he didn't mean for the pilot to commit actual murder. He'll act all outraged, and throw the pilot under the bus.

If nothing else (and they are plenty else), MAGA is cowardly.

[–] extremeboredom@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Including the commander in chief

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 2 months ago

Prince Joffrey

[–] elfin8er@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I could bite my finger off too. Doesn't mean shit.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 months ago

Hahaha! Oh, you were serious? That won't happen.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is what happens when you think you're the king.

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

If anyone is held accountable, it will be the person that ultimately pressed the buttons and/or their direct superior.

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Pardons all around -orange turd

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

They are doing the Democrats job. Democrats want the military to refuse illegal orders and the GOP(Goofy Old Phuckers) are helping by punishing the military for obeying them.

[–] Darkness343@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Uhm, it's secretary of war

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

SSecretary of War get it right

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 5 points 2 months ago

Yes, that’s pretty much how war crimes work.

[–] TASchwitters@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] hayvan@feddit.nl 5 points 2 months ago

More like "should but won't"

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I guess I don't understand why the second strike is worse than the first one?

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago

It's not that it's worse in any way, a person killed is dead either way, it's that there's no possible defense and it clearly demonstrates the intentional and likely premeditated illegality, making it possible to actually make a substantive case against it. It's not realistic to apply a full legal process to every individual military misdeed or act of war, no matter how much many people might wish it were. We don't live in a perfect world. The list of actual war crimes is intended to include things which are clearly demonstrable with enough evidence that a conviction could be realistic.

It's the difference between running someone over once, which could be a simple accident and we can't and probably shouldn't prosecute every single pedestrian death as first degree murder, it might serve justice to try to do that in some ways, but it's not realistic and also has the potential to be unjust.

Compare that to someone then stopping, backing up and running the same person over again. It removes any possibility of doubt whether the action was an intentional targeted crime and makes it a lot more worthwhile to prosecute. Neither one makes the person any more dead than the other. But one is almost certainly a lot easier to prove to be murder.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›