Sometimes a future regime can overcome the pardons, sometimes not. The current SCOTUS, filled with loyalists, will probably need to change first.
"18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal."
...For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal...
Section 5.4.7 of the DOD Law of War Manual:
Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.
You may want to refresh yourself with actual Department of Defense Law of War Manual - see page 244.
https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...
Why is media in scare quotes in your original post?
I don’t need to be in a sixteen comment “debate”, but I think there’s sometimes a lot of value in one or two questions that might expose a comment for what it is.
But your point is definitely well taken!
Media is quoted because The Atlantic tends to be very biased to one side—-they are not objective; they have an agenda.
It seems, rather, that that’s not happening because the military and the Commander-in-Chief are scared that they might find a microphone, rather than any actual real concern about, well, any threat they might pose.
Does having a vague bias make an organization no longer “media”?
New details emerged Wednesday about the second strike by the U.S. military on an alleged boat on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors, according to a source familiar with the incident.
The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike, the source said.
They were believed to be potentially in communication with others in the vicinity and were salvaging some of the drugs that had been the boat’s cargo, the source said, and because of these actions were determined to be "still in the fight" and considered to be valid targets.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-details-emerge-controver...
labrador•2mo ago
andsoitis•2mo ago
fit. you forgot fit.
smt88•2mo ago
richardatlarge•2mo ago
f30e3dfed1c9•2mo ago
dolphinscorpion•2mo ago
smt88•2mo ago