US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
You seem to have some misconception of what constitutes a legal target and what doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if you are at war or not. Warships, are military targets. They are valid targets. You do not have to be in war to sink one. But it’s probably going to start one.
And no. It is not illegal for a submarine to remain submerged. Submarines are not expected to conduct rescue operations. They do have to do something. Notifying someone else as to where there might be survivors, is something.
You are only required to conduct a rescue operation if you think it is safe to do so. You are not required to rescue sailors if you believe it could put your ship in danger.
None of this means you can’t feel the way you do. That’s fine. You think the captain is a coward and scum for not helping them. Sure, I’m not trying to take that away. All I’m saying is, the order was not illegal. The act was not illegal, and the aftermath was also not illegal.
I’m really not sure why people are hyperfocusing on the one instance where the US didn’t commit a war crime. You have so many other things to pick from… why die on this hill? They bombed a God damn school for girls.
The article references the geneva convention as the document that requires rescuing the sailors. So that is where that part comes from. It is of cpurse unlikely to be as simply worded as that. So lets agree it may not be strictly speaking illegal. However, illegal is whatever the prosecutor decides to prosecute for and that the judge agrees is illegal. In some cases a jury too.
But let’s put that aside. My goal was to identify the person who was the last person to reasonably expect to reject the order. In this case the captain of the sub. Name and shame. Give people in that position in the future at least some reason to pause and think before doing such things. Just following orders doesn’t cut it at that level. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a moral one. We need to shine a light on those people, let them know we know what they did. Make them live with that.
Again. This wasn’t an illegal order. There’s nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They’re targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.
If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they’d be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.
Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don’t have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they’re doing.
So unless you’re given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people’s lives may very well depend on it. I don’t think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.
You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you’ve laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.
So I wasn’t talking about the strike as much as not aiding the sailors. Sinking the boat, while reprehensible, would be a hard order to defy. Rescuing the sailors until other help arrived though. That would be reasonable to do, even if ordered not to. Leaning on the Geneva convention as support may not save a person. But it would still be the honorable thing to do.
You seem to have some misconception of what constitutes a legal target and what doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if you are at war or not. Warships, are military targets. They are valid targets. You do not have to be in war to sink one. But it’s probably going to start one.
And no. It is not illegal for a submarine to remain submerged. Submarines are not expected to conduct rescue operations. They do have to do something. Notifying someone else as to where there might be survivors, is something.
You are only required to conduct a rescue operation if you think it is safe to do so. You are not required to rescue sailors if you believe it could put your ship in danger.
None of this means you can’t feel the way you do. That’s fine. You think the captain is a coward and scum for not helping them. Sure, I’m not trying to take that away. All I’m saying is, the order was not illegal. The act was not illegal, and the aftermath was also not illegal.
I’m really not sure why people are hyperfocusing on the one instance where the US didn’t commit a war crime. You have so many other things to pick from… why die on this hill? They bombed a God damn school for girls.
The article references the geneva convention as the document that requires rescuing the sailors. So that is where that part comes from. It is of cpurse unlikely to be as simply worded as that. So lets agree it may not be strictly speaking illegal. However, illegal is whatever the prosecutor decides to prosecute for and that the judge agrees is illegal. In some cases a jury too.
But let’s put that aside. My goal was to identify the person who was the last person to reasonably expect to reject the order. In this case the captain of the sub. Name and shame. Give people in that position in the future at least some reason to pause and think before doing such things. Just following orders doesn’t cut it at that level. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a moral one. We need to shine a light on those people, let them know we know what they did. Make them live with that.
Again. This wasn’t an illegal order. There’s nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They’re targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.
If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they’d be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.
Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don’t have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they’re doing.
So unless you’re given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people’s lives may very well depend on it. I don’t think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.
You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you’ve laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.
So I wasn’t talking about the strike as much as not aiding the sailors. Sinking the boat, while reprehensible, would be a hard order to defy. Rescuing the sailors until other help arrived though. That would be reasonable to do, even if ordered not to. Leaning on the Geneva convention as support may not save a person. But it would still be the honorable thing to do.