this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
99 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19356 readers
1955 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Concerns have emerged over Trump's defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, who has criticized the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules of engagement as overly restrictive.

Critics, including retired military officers, argue his rhetoric could undermine the military's commitment to lawful conduct and accountability.

Hegseth has supported pardons for service members convicted of war crimes and questioned the application of international laws to extremist adversaries.

While Hegseth claims he does not condone war crimes, experts worry his stance could confuse troops and erode core military principles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

While our political elite love to yeet the military all over the world, the rank and file has been largely subject to international laws of war while overseas.

Has it? Because while I could be wrong kidnapping civilians and torturing them in Guantanamo, the more than a few massacres committed by the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan and of course the indiscriminate drone bombings all seem to be blatant violations of international law.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The rank and file aren't doing Guantanamo. And the reason we know about the war crimes that have happened at that level is because the military prosecuted them. The US isn't refusing the ICC to protect it's soldiers. It's the politicians.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Twelve soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees.

From the Wikipedia article on Abu Gharib. If this counts as prosecution then the IDF also "prosecutes" its war criminals. Where's the punishment for the systematic rape, torture and murder? These aren't crimes that should be settled by twelve rank and file soldiers getting a slap on the wrist. By the way, we know about these war crimes because newspapers reported on them and publicized them, and that's why the US army "prosecuted" them. Your knowledge of US violations of international law seems to be very whitewashed.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Abu ghraib specifically was because of a general officer's investigation. And it was 12 soldiers because they were the idiots that got mixed up with CIA Contractors doing most of the stupid stuff.