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.”

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    21 hours ago

    What absolute moron would obey that order?

    I could see how maybe you could believe there was justification for the initial strike but there can be no justification for killing people who are now defenceless. Although why not just board the vessel and take everyone into custody, why instantly resort to deadly force, did they have information that the people on the boat were heavily armed or otherwise able to threaten a US naval vessel?

    • notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      I won’t claim to have researched it myself, but I’ve seen about a dozen different people quote the section of military law that talks about illegal orders that are so blatant you don’t need to check or think, they’re illegal, and the example they use is “firing upon the shipwrecked”.

      As in, the order to fire upon the shipwrecked should be immediately known to every Navy personnel as blatantly illegal as a precondition of their service.

      If you’re performing the example for an illegal order, you’re executing illegal orders.

      Edit: and I’m realizing now I responded to the wrong person.

    • warbond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      In my mind the rules are clear on that: to use deadly force there must be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Potential future harms can’t even begin to be accounted for, so the standard has to be judged with those immediate circumstances in mind.

      Even in that situation there are means to deter a threat or determine a person’s intent prior to employing any sort of lethal force. There’s nothing justifiable about this.