US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
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.
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.