Drug Boat Strike

[Spekkio]

Military legal precedent for you as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Peleus

Look, personally I don't agree with the Venezuelan attacks, but looking to post WWII trials is the military version of resorting to Hitler attacks in any debate.

Here's what the Wikipidia article concludes with:

However, the historian Dwight R. Messimer from the U.S. Naval Institute came to the conclusion that "regardless of whether or not Heinz Eck and the others were guilty of war crimes, poor judgment, or of just following orders, the outcome of the trial was Siegerjustiz (victor's justice)".

It was customary from the 18th to 1st half of the 20th century to punish the political and senior military leadership of the losers in an unlimited war. Had the US lost the Revolution, every political leader and General would have been hanged. The British punished Napoleon and his leaders the same. The British and French punished the Germans after WWI, and again after WWII.

It doesn't matter what the Germans did, they were going to be executed for it. Because they started a major conflict and lost. And they're quietly still salty about it, but have set up laws and rules so that they don't piss off the rest of the European order.

We were no better than the Germans in WWII. There are stories we read with pride before people get pinned that would put Eck to shame. But we won, so we didn't stand trial for it... nor for the atomic bombing of two cities with no military importance.

Our hypocracy is a huge weakness in the neoliberalism approach to foreign policy. The rules are the rules and everyone must follow them... until it's inconvenient for us, and then we disregard them. Hence the phrase "American exceptualism."

If we ever lose a war, our leadership will face the same fate. Particularly the ones who showed extremely good success in battle.

 

[Swanee]

What about an unarmed person trying to run for cover from an apache?

What's the ROE? Are they running to cover to rearm?

Say what you will about the administration, I don't personally give a shit.

Yeah. We get that.

Here's the thing though, as an Officer you are supposed to give a shit, and you're supposed to think about these scenarios. At least, the USMC wanted me to. The USAF has trouble defining that line at the CGO level. But it's part of FGO PME. I understand it. They have to have nuke missileers and B-2 pilots along side MQ-9 pilots/operators and F-16 pilots, and CE and other folks who will work in an air conditioned office, process paperwork for a living. The closest thing to a combat zone they'll see has Dominos pizza and Burger King. But even for them an illegal order may be to shred something, or to bury one of those pieces of paperwork. So yeah. It matters, and and as officer, you should absolutely give a shit.

 

[Spekkio]

What's the ROE? Are they running to cover to rearm?

Confirmed terrorist leader. ROE is to eliminate him.

Here's the thing though, as an Officer you are supposed to give a shit, and you're supposed to think about these scenarios. At least, the USMC wanted me to. The USAF has trouble defining that line at the CGO level. But it's part of FGO PME. I understand it. They have to have nuke missileers and B-2 pilots along side MQ-9 pilots/operators and F-16 pilots, and CE and other folks who will work in an air conditioned office, process paperwork for a living. The closest thing to a combat zone they'll see has Dominos pizza and Burger King. But even for them an illegal order may be to shred something, or to bury one of those pieces of paperwork. So yeah. It matters, and and as officer, you should absolutely give a shit.

Being apolitical means that I objectively don't give a shit about why the President wants to initiate a conflict with Venezuela and kill drug runners, I only care whether or not he has the lawful authority to order it.

And he does, whether I like it or not.

 

[Brett327]

as an Officer you are supposed to give a shit,

Indeed, but consider the source. Though Spekkio's service as a submariner is admirable, he has been brought up in a very black and white tactical world. Even if he has been involved in employing TLAMs, he has never had to consider any sense of nuance. Coordinates received from higher, TOT confirmed, launch as ordered. He has never had to validate a target, never performed CDE, and never fired a shot in anger, or in self defense. He will never carry the burden of command, and he will never have to face any of those decisions that have been the bread and butter of people in cockpits for the last 25 years. This is all completely academic to him. He isn't like us.

Hence...

I don't personally give a shit.

 

[Spekkio]

Indeed, but consider the source. Though Spekkio's service as a submariner is admirable, he has been brought up in a very black and white tactical world. Even if he has been involved in employing TLAMs, he has never had to consider any sense of nuance. Coordinates received from higher, TOT confirmed, launch as ordered. He has never had to validate a target, never performed CDE, and never fired a shot in anger, or in self defense.

While I have thankfully never had to fire a torpedo in anger, you are dead wrong about the rest. We train very heavily on ROE because we don't have the luxury of easy access to JAGs or communications. And what you don't do is live in a world where every mission tasking you receive could be construed as a war crime.

Would be a shame if a ship carrying critical supplies for an enemy regiment got to its destination because someone onboard the boat decided unrestricted submarine warfare was unlawful despite explicit tasking to take it out. Or hey, that strategic launch order is going to kill a whole lot of innocent civilians, so we're just gonna call that one unlawful, too.

There exists a numeric code in the CJCS ROE to destroy hospital ships. If it's illegal, why would that be in there? Rhetorical question.

And way to take the 'i don't give a shit' quote out of context... I was referring to the fact that regardless of what you think about the administration, there are several echelons of GOFO looking at the orders along with their SJAs.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Look, personally I don't agree with the Venezuelan attacks, but looking to post WWII trials is the military version of resorting to Hitler attacks in any debate.

Here's what the Wikipidia article concludes with:

It was customary from the 18th to 1st half of the 20th century to punish the political and senior military leadership of the losers in an unlimited war. Had the US lost the Revolution, every political leader and General would have been hanged. The British punished Napoleon and his leaders the same. The British and French punished the Germans after WWI, and again after WWII.

It doesn't matter what the Germans did, they were going to be executed for it. Because they started a major conflict and lost. And they're quietly still salty about it, but have set up laws and rules so that they don't piss off the rest of the European order.

We were no better than the Germans in WWII. There are stories we read with pride before people get pinned that would put Eck to shame. But we won, so we didn't stand trial for it... nor for the atomic bombing of two cities with no military importance.

Our hypocracy is a huge weakness in the neoliberalism approach to foreign policy. The rules are the rules and everyone must follow them... until it's inconvenient for us, and then we disregard them.

If we ever lose a war, our leadership will face the same fate. Particularly the ones who showed extremely good success in battle.

To echo your point, at Nuremberg the US charged Admiral Donitz with the war crime of unrestricted submarine warfare. Donitz’s defense team called Admiral Chester Nimitz to testify the US carried on unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.

 

[Spekkio]

To echo your point, at Nuremberg the US charged Admiral Donitz with the war crime of unrestricted submarine warfare. Donitz’s defense team called Admiral Chester Nimitz to testify the US carried on unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.

Yeah, aside from concentration camps you can't point to the Nuremberg trials and say "see, war crimes!" Besides, the foundation of our doctrine is an amalgamation of German and British warfare.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Yeah, aside from concentration camps you can't point to the Nuremberg trials and say "see, war crimes!" Besides, the foundation of our doctrine is an amalgamation of German and British warfare.

To go a little further. the reason the Germans resorted to unrestricted submarine warfare was the Laconia Incident of 1942.

RMS Laconia was an armed Cunard ocean liner. While on a mission carrying 2,732 crew, soldiers and prisoners of war, the liner was torpedoed and sunk by U-156 on 12 September 1942 off the West African coast. The u-boat, seeing that it was a catastrophe, engaged in rescue operations and broadcast in English in the clear for assistance. Several other u-boats arrived and assisted. Flying Red Cross banners with survivors on the decks and towing 3 lifeboats, the submarines were spotted by a US Army Air Corps B-24, who, after discussing with headquarters, disregarded the survivors and Red Cross flags, and began multiple attack runs. The next day, the same B-24 attacked U-506 which was carrying 191 survivors. The B-24 crews were awarded medals.

This incident caused the German navy to disregard all survivors (the Laconia Order from Admiral Doenitz) and begin unrestricted warfare. When the German use of submarines was brought up at Nuremberg after the war, this incident became more widely known.

 

[Spekkio]

You're dropping WWII history like my great grandfather used to (who was actually there).

 

[taxi1]

From the Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/12/01/hegseth-caine-boat-strikes-caribbean/

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, acknowledged Monday that Hegseth had authorized Bradley to conduct the strikes on Sept. 2. Bradley, she added, “worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed.”

Her scripted remarks at a news briefing elicited a furious backlash within the Defense Department, where officials described feeling angry at the uncertainty over whether Hegseth would take responsibility for his alleged role in the operation — or leave the military and civilian staff under him to face the consequences.

“This is ‘protect Pete’ bulls---,” one military official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations, told The Post.

 

[Brett327]

See what I mean by academic?

 

[Hotdogs]

There exists a numeric code in the CJCS ROE to destroy hospital ships. If it's illegal, why would that be in there? Rhetorical question.

Because it’s not being used as a hospital ship?

Ya know, kinda like why we were pumping 105mm rounds from AC-130s into ambulances in Fallujah.

Do you even understand the basic tenants of the LOAC?