Today’s UK is not the same as our trusted long-time ally. Starmer is the least popular PM in decades.
Letting them die would be illegal. Our duty in shipwrecked situations is clear - to rescue them. We're more than capable of rescuing them, we have an entire Strike Group in the region and a couple squadrons of helicopters that are on the carrier and distributed throughout the strike group (2 per destroyer). It's not a difficult rescue.@stollcpa What’s your answer if the article is accurate?
Lets say, for the sake of argument) that they are 100+ miles off shore. Is it more ethical FOR YOU, that they are allowed to slowly die over the next several days? (Sharks, dehydration, starvation.....)
I think all need to be aware of a core military leadership principle. Authority can be delegated but responsibility cannot be. Subordinates can be given the authority to act but the leader is responsible and accountable for the outcome.
Hegseth must be held accountable at some point. The legality of the boat strikes is still undergoing a rigorous debate (Hegseth fired his lead JAG officer because he didn't like his opinion) and demanded Admiral Holsey retire early because the Admiral was convinced the planned boat strikes were unlawful and wouldn't do it (this is why the 2 SEP attack wasn't carried out by SouthCom) and if the report of the second strike is accurate killing the shipwrecked survivors is clearly illegal. The IG reported that Hegseth shared highly classified information in the infamous Signal chat. Nearly every officer and senior enlisted in the entire military already knew this. Hegseth lied about it and continues to lie about it. His senior officers have little to no respect for or trust in Hegseth. He's fired flag (forced retirement) officers apparently solely because they were black or women. I've never seen a guy who more deserved firing from a Cabinet Secretary job than Hegseth, especially the SecDef job.
IG finds Hegseth risked endangering Houthi mission with Signal use
Up to date list of boat strikes:
A list of US military strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels
Letting them die would be illegal.
I'm gonna need a bit more context on this part. illegal exactly how, as them being a threat to national security?
The rest of your post was a deflection. We know (ish) our capabilities.
Back to the question. Kill them quick as enemy, or let them die over the next few weeks, hanging onto floating debris. Your grand daughters life depends on your answer.
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
It's a legal requirement for to rescue shipwrecked survivors. Period. On my first deployment in 1987 we rescued 57 Vietnamese that were in a disabled boat. They left Vietnam with over 100 people on board. It was the right thing to do to rescue them, but it was also a legal requirement to rescue them. Shipwrecked survivors is a category of protected people we CANNOT kill and must rescue. It's given as an example in our Law of the Sea Manual. The UCMJ specifically says it's murder to kill helpless survivors. Your hypothetical isn't an impossible hypothetical. Our only legal choice is to rescue them.Letting them die would be illegal.
I'm gonna need a bit more context on this part. illegal exactly how, as them being a threat to national security?
The rest of your post was a deflection. We know (ish) our capabilities.
Back to the question. Kill them quick as enemy, or let them die over the next few weeks, hanging onto floating debris. Your grand daughters life depends on your answer.
So, let's say that you're a Sailor on my ship and we just disabled that boat and those two were shipwrecked. If I told you to shoot them, would you do it? It's an unlawful order for me to give and if you did it, we'd both subject to prosecution for murder. If I gave the order to sail away and let them fend for themselves, would that be legal? The answer is no and it's not debatable.
Your last sentence is idiotic. Try to do better.
I am not military, but my understanding is that you are obligated to save a former enemy combatant who is in danger of death, if he/she is unarmed, defenseless, or in any other was no longer poses a threat. Either executing them or letting them die rather than taking them as prisoners of war is somewhere along the scale of war crime/ manslaughter / murder
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
It's a legal requirement for to rescue shipwrecked survivors. Period. On my first deployment in 1987 we rescued 57 Vietnamese that were in a disabled boat. They left Vietnam with over 100 people on board. It was the right thing to do to rescue them, but it was also a legal requirement to rescue them. Shipwrecked survivors is a category of protected people we CANNOT kill and must rescue. It's given as an example in our Law of the Sea Manual. The UCMJ specifically says it's murder to kill helpless survivors. Your hypothetical isn't an impossible hypothetical. Our only legal choice is to rescue them.
So, let's say that you're a Sailor on my ship and we just disabled that boat and those two were shipwrecked. If I told you to shoot them, would you do it? It's an unlawful order for me to give and if you did it, we'd both subject to prosecution for murder. If I gave the order to sail away and let them fend for themselves, would that be legal? The answer is no and it's not debatable.
Your last sentence is idiotic. Try to do better.
Thanks for the response Aloha. Even after all that, I'm not sure your answered the question of how floating off is illegal exactly. UMCJ, I don't have nor will I spend the time to review (probably not smart enough to do it anyway, to be totally honest). Isn't the US military 99.999999% sovereign from mainland Law with the rare exceptions? Maybe this is that rare exception.? IF it actually ever happened.
As far as my last sentence. They were willing participants to bring illegal substances into America that could kill your grand daughter. Maybe you don't have a Grand Daughter, and that fact, you could use to obfuscate. But I do in fact have 8 of them.
Shall I following the law, which could increase the chance of one of them (or yours, or our fellow country men's) to die... or do I protect my granddaughters lives at all cost, of a WELL KNOWN epidemic?
Maybe you think more of law than your kids. That's your right. I'm not sure that I do. I know this is all academic on here. I pray for those who had to make the split second decision. I will not find fault in their decision though.
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
Trust me, it's the law. It's referenced in several of the links in this thread, in fact. You could have read some of them.Thanks for the response Aloha. Even after all that, I'm not sure your answered the question of how floating off is illegal exactly. UMCJ, I don't have nor will I spend the time to review (probably not smart enough to do it anyway, to be totally honest). Isn't the US military 99.999999% sovereign from mainland Law with the rare exceptions? Maybe this is that rare exception.? IF it actually ever happened.
As far as my last sentence. They were willing participants to bring illegal substances into America that could kill your grand daughter. Maybe you don't have a Grand Daughter, and that fact, you could use to obfuscate. But I do in fact have 8 of them.
Shall I following the law, which could increase the chance of one of them (or yours, or our fellow country men's) to die... or do I protect my granddaughters lives at all cost, of a WELL KNOWN epidemic?
Maybe you think more of law than your kids. That's your right. I'm not sure that I do. I know this is all academic on here. I pray for those who had to make the split second decision. I will not find fault in their decision though.
These boats aren't carrying fentanyl, if they're carrying drugs, it's most likely cocaine and something like 90 percent of the cocaine from Venezuela goes to Europe through Africa (also in some of the articles). I don't know how many die from cocaine use, but I'm sure it's much less than from other drugs, especially fentanyl. The boat was destroyed, and the cocaine was as well. We know from experience that most of the guys operating these boats are basically peasants trying to make a few bucks. They live in South America somewhere. They're not a threat to the US or your granddaughters on their farms or their fishing boats which is what they normally do. These guys aren't a threat that need to be killed, besides the fact that it's illegal to do it.
I'm interested in your answers to my questions. It's pretty easy to say they're bad guys and I don't care if they're killed, but it's a little harder for you to pull the trigger yourself. Would you riddle them with .50 cal. rounds if I ordered you to? Would you toss a couple of grenades at them? Would you help pull them aboard and then stab them in the hearts? Would you murder them?
Hegseth has had it with the press. Today he said, “I get knocked down, but I get up again. You're never gonna keep me down. I drink a whiskey drink, I drink a vodka drink, I drink a lager drink, I drink a cider drink.”
Trust me, it's the law. It's referenced in several of the links in this thread, in fact. You could have read some of them.Thanks for the response Aloha. Even after all that, I'm not sure your answered the question of how floating off is illegal exactly. UMCJ, I don't have nor will I spend the time to review (probably not smart enough to do it anyway, to be totally honest). Isn't the US military 99.999999% sovereign from mainland Law with the rare exceptions? Maybe this is that rare exception.? IF it actually ever happened.
As far as my last sentence. They were willing participants to bring illegal substances into America that could kill your grand daughter. Maybe you don't have a Grand Daughter, and that fact, you could use to obfuscate. But I do in fact have 8 of them.
Shall I following the law, which could increase the chance of one of them (or yours, or our fellow country men's) to die... or do I protect my granddaughters lives at all cost, of a WELL KNOWN epidemic?
Maybe you think more of law than your kids. That's your right. I'm not sure that I do. I know this is all academic on here. I pray for those who had to make the split second decision. I will not find fault in their decision though.
These boats aren't carrying fentanyl, if they're carrying drugs, it's most likely cocaine and something like 90 percent of the cocaine from Venezuela goes to Europe through Africa (also in some of the articles). I don't know how many die from cocaine use, but I'm sure it's much less than from other drugs, especially fentanyl. The boat was destroyed, and the cocaine was as well. We know from experience that most of the guys operating these boats are basically peasants trying to make a few bucks. They live in South America somewhere. They're not a threat to the US or your granddaughters on their farms or their fishing boats which is what they normally do. These guys aren't a threat that need to be killed, besides the fact that it's illegal to do it.
I'm interested in your answers to my questions. It's pretty easy to say they're bad guys and I don't care if they're killed, but it's a little harder for you to pull the trigger yourself. Would you riddle them with .50 cal. rounds if I ordered you to? Would you toss a couple of grenades at them? Would you help pull them aboard and then stab them in the hearts? Would you murder them?
If my action saved your wife, daughter, grand daughter.
You god damn right there would be blood in the water even if it was my last stand. Laws be damned.
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
You wouldn't save anyone, and you'd spend the rest of your life in Fort Leavenworth Military Prison for murder. That wouldn't do much good for your granddaughters.Trust me, it's the law. It's referenced in several of the links in this thread, in fact. You could have read some of them.Thanks for the response Aloha. Even after all that, I'm not sure your answered the question of how floating off is illegal exactly. UMCJ, I don't have nor will I spend the time to review (probably not smart enough to do it anyway, to be totally honest). Isn't the US military 99.999999% sovereign from mainland Law with the rare exceptions? Maybe this is that rare exception.? IF it actually ever happened.
As far as my last sentence. They were willing participants to bring illegal substances into America that could kill your grand daughter. Maybe you don't have a Grand Daughter, and that fact, you could use to obfuscate. But I do in fact have 8 of them.
Shall I following the law, which could increase the chance of one of them (or yours, or our fellow country men's) to die... or do I protect my granddaughters lives at all cost, of a WELL KNOWN epidemic?
Maybe you think more of law than your kids. That's your right. I'm not sure that I do. I know this is all academic on here. I pray for those who had to make the split second decision. I will not find fault in their decision though.
These boats aren't carrying fentanyl, if they're carrying drugs, it's most likely cocaine and something like 90 percent of the cocaine from Venezuela goes to Europe through Africa (also in some of the articles). I don't know how many die from cocaine use, but I'm sure it's much less than from other drugs, especially fentanyl. The boat was destroyed, and the cocaine was as well. We know from experience that most of the guys operating these boats are basically peasants trying to make a few bucks. They live in South America somewhere. They're not a threat to the US or your granddaughters on their farms or their fishing boats which is what they normally do. These guys aren't a threat that need to be killed, besides the fact that it's illegal to do it.
I'm interested in your answers to my questions. It's pretty easy to say they're bad guys and I don't care if they're killed, but it's a little harder for you to pull the trigger yourself. Would you riddle them with .50 cal. rounds if I ordered you to? Would you toss a couple of grenades at them? Would you help pull them aboard and then stab them in the hearts? Would you murder them?
If my action saved your wife, daughter, grand daughter.
You god damn right there would be blood in the water even if it was my last stand. Laws be damned.
wouldn't do much good for your granddaughters.
Or yours, which is how I framed the discussion. You seem to be Okay with sacrificing them. NOW, would you break a "law" to save a loved ones life. Simple question.
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
It's silly. This scenario isn't at all realistic. I don't believe for one second that murdering the shipwrecked survivors would save any life. You need to come up with something at least a little plausible. By the way, when you go to prison, so would I for giving the unlawful order to kill them.wouldn't do much good for your granddaughters.
Or yours, which is how I framed the discussion. You seem to be Okay with sacrificing them. NOW, would you break a "law" to save a loved ones life. Simple question.
Latest Post: How are you surviving the Trumpenomic meltdown? Our newest member: Eric Swenson Recent Posts Unread Posts
