you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 8 months ago (58 children)

It was not an illegal order. And it's also entirely possible the captain didn't know the status of the ships ammunition supply, or lack there of. Not that it changes anything from a legal standpoint.

But, it being a legal target doesn't change the fact that it was cowardly. Both are true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    How was it a legal target? We are not at war as idiot orange says.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    You are in a defacto war. Despite whatever orange man says. The ship was inside international waters. It belongs to the nation you are attacking. It was a military ship. It is a legal target.

    What's not a legal target are the civilian boats they shot down outside of Venezuela.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So usa’s ships are legal targets for all world countries?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Attacking a military ship is generally not a war crime (as defined by international law such as the Geneva treaties, Rome Statute etc...). It is an act of war (same as invasion or bombardment of another country), and is likely to see retaliation by the attacked country.

    Aggression (i.e. unprovoked acts of war) is against the Charter of the United Nations, which also includes the International Court of Justice as a dispute resolution mechanism. It is up to the United Nations Security Council (at which the US has a veto) to authorise enforcement of ICJ rulings.

    If a nation is acting to protect another nation facing aggression from the US, it would be legal for the attack US military ships. The reason why they wouldn't would more be that it would likely bring counter-retaliation from the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Legal by whose standards? The international law’s? No one enforces that. Unless it’s to benefit the richest. Most international law is followed basically on the honor system.

    By the US’s standards, everything is legal because the president has no limitations because our government will never pass those limitations on a president. If it was illegal, no one is can or will enforce it.

    Who cares about “legal”?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Actually the orange idiot keeps saying you are. It was Mike Johnson going the SMO route

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Only Congress can declare war. Until then it's a conflict.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    A war is a war whether the aggressor decides to officially call it that or not

    War - Noun -fighting, using soldiers and weapons, between two or more countries, or two or more groups inside a country - Cambridge Dictionary

    It's just as much a war as Putin's war in Ukraine is. The fact that Congress hasn't gotten round to declaring it yet is moot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    He also decided to not help the survivors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (17 children)

    It's a submarine. What do you expect them to do? They are not equipped to handle POW's

    It is believed Sri Lanka was notified which were at the scene quickly after it sank.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (16 children)

    They surface, they deploy lifeboats. They treat the wounded and hand them off to locals. Just like submarines have been doing for a very long time. As was pointed out, even the Nazis didn't abandon survivors. Sri Lanka may have been their quickly, but quickly in nautical terms is hours at best. The sub could have hung around and aided the survivors at least that long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    You are right about nazi subs helping sailors. They would carry them on top of the sub, while towing the rest from a lifeboat. And then they stoped doing that. Because they were fired upon by allied planes while they were towing the lifeboat. So they cut the line and submerged.

    That was the last time a submarine tried to help sailors in WW2.

    Submarine countermeasures have only increased since then.

    Another reason for the submarine to not surface is because they don't want to let anyone else know which submarine is where.

    I'm not gonna say sinking an unarmed warship returning from an exercise is cool. But it's not a war crime if it's in international waters, And it's also not a war crime for a submarine to remained submerged. They are simply not expected to conduct rescue operations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (12 children)

    If you actually bothered to read what you linked. You would see this paragraph

    The scope of what a Party to the conflict is actually required to do on the basis of Article 18(1) will depend on the interpretation of the qualifier ‘possible’. What will be possible in the circumstances is inherently context-specific. Thus, the measures that must be taken in each case have to be determined in good faith, based on the circumstances and the information reasonably available to both the commanders on the spot or nearby and to the other organs acting on behalf of the Party to the conflict.

    And also

    In this regard, the fact that the obligation of Article 18(1) applies to the ‘Party to the conflict’ as a whole is critical. Thus, it may occur that the commander of a single warship or even of an entire naval task-force considers, in a good-faith assessment, that it is impossible to undertake, with the assets under his or her command, any of the activities required under Article 18. This does not, however, absolve those overseeing the commander’s operations (who will have a fuller picture of the situation and may be able to deploy other assets) from assessing what ‘possible measures’ can – and therefore must – be taken. Nor does it absolve the commander from considering other activities that are possible, such as alerting nearby coastal authorities or other vessels in the area or making an ‘appeal to the charity’ of neutral vessels in the sense of Article 21.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I did read it.

    The action toke place half an ocean away from the combat theatre. There were no enemy naval nor aerial units around. There was no reasonable risk for the American sub.

    But the captain decided not to help the survivors.

    He is a war criminal and should be put on trial. But it won’t happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    I'm sorry but you are wrong. The US have committed more than their fair share of war crimes. But this spcific incident isn't one of them.

    You say you read it, but it would then seem you purposefully ignored this part

    based on the circumstances and the information reasonably available

    You can look back and say "oh, they never sent a jet, there was no danger". But you're doing that with the textbook in hand. You are sitting several days in the future with far more information available to you than at the time of the incident.

    A submarine, and I honestly can't believe i have to say this more than 10 times by now. Is generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. As far as the submarine captain goes. What do you want him, personally, to do, that also does not put his submarine or his crew in potential danger.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (9 children)

    So do we really think Iran had sub killing capabilities in that area so far from home? It does say determined in good faith. You could argue that the captain's superiors may know something he doesn't, but cna you argue in good faith that they would withhold information about a threat to his sub in the area? Good faith would mean just claiming there might have been doesn't count.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (8 children)

    Sub killing capabilities as of right now. I highly doubt it.

    But it would not be unreasonable to think they might have sent a mig to investigate. Submarines have very limited radar capabilities. It could be dangerous for them to surface for a prolonged time to conduct rescue.

    How plausible is that? Probably not very, a Kuwaiti f18 shooting down 3 friendly f15 is also pretty low on the plausibility scale. But it still happened.

    I agree, the criteria of what is and isn't good faith decisions with the information currently at hand is difficult to prove or disprove.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    What is the story on those planes. Are they really saying one f18 shot down 3 f15s before noticing they were US jets? Would have to be long range missles I assume, but can they carry that many?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    As far as I'm aware. They were all shot down by an F18. I don't know if they've confirmed exactly which missile was used, but last i heard, it was believed to have been IR seeking missiles. Which are short range missiles compared to radar missiles which can probably go at least 10x as far.

    Most modern jets are capable of carrying at least 6 missiles, as in, they have at least 6 hardpoints to attach weapons on. So the F18 carrying 3 is not a problem, I assume he had lot more than that.

    But how they made that mistake I don't understand. Jets have so many tools available to them to identify what it is they're locking. Some speculate it wasn't a mistake. That it was a pilot sympathetic to Iran. But that is just speculation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    So when you say short range... are we talking dogfight range?
    Just seems like one jet taking out 3 should be harder. But if the speculation were to be true, I guees they could have willingly let him get behind them and stayed in formation or something. Do those jets even have the programming to fire at three targets simultaneously? I assumed nowadays dodging air to air missles wasn't too hard if you knew it was coming. The high speeds on both the plane and missle should make it easier to avoid them meeting if that's your goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    well, there's new footage from the ground, showing both the f18 and the third and final f15 in the same frame. So yes, that would be within what you called "dogfight range"

    Just seems like one jet taking out 3 should be harder.

    From what I've read and heard, the f15 were all cruising home at 300 knots. That is mach .45, so they are going quite slow, and they are not expecting any danger since they are now inside kuwaiti airspace.

    I assumed nowadays dodging air to air missles wasn’t too hard if you knew it was coming.

    I'd say it's the opposite. It's more difficult than ever to "dodge" a missile. Not that it can't be done if the circumstances are in your favour.

    In this case, the f15 is going subsonic. A missile coming from behind at probably mach 2-3. There's nothing in the world a pilot can do about that.

    Do those jets even have the programming to fire at three targets simultaneously?

    No. You would have to "lock" the missile on your target, fire. Lock the next missile on your new target, fire, lock again for a third time, then fire.

    But in the case of the third airplane shot down. The F18 was well within visual range. He should have been able to visually identify that those were F15 SE

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    For the dodging, the faster something goes, usually the easier it is to dodge because it can't change direction as fast. Like a bullfighter stepping aside to let the bull run through the red cape. But I guess the target can't change it's position very fast, and would have a hard time timing the move against something coming that fast.

    And for the third jet. How long do you think it would be between the first missle launch and the third? Like how much time did he theoretically have to react. I assume alarms would have gone off in the cockpit of all three when the first missle launched.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Hey, lots of text ahead, but it seemed like you wanted some information of the situation so I did my best.

    For the dodging, it's the opposite, the faster something goes, the harder it is to dodge it in the air. You can only move so fast, and you can only change direction so fast. Especially if you're only doing 300 knots

    The missile is faster than you, and it's more maneuverable than you. Best case you can bleed it out of energy. But that's not gonna happen in this situation.

    The f18 shot them from within visual range. Don't quote me on it. But from what I heard, he used IR seeking missiles. I don't believe the planes can give you an alarm for them. They're not blasting you with a detectable radar wave. It's looking at your IR signature with a camera. In this case, from a rear aspect. And modern missiles will narrow their focus a lot to avoid locking onto flares. You'd have to pre-flare a lot, and/or bloom your flares out while making a maneuver to have even the slightest chance of avoiding it coming from the rear.

    Regardless, even if they would get an alarm. I highly doubt there's anything they could do. It's very short range, they're going slow. The missile is very fast. It's like you decided to go to the bathroom. And mid shit someone kicks the door open and starts to punch you. You don't exactly have a lot of options.

    I do not have a time frame of the entire event. I'm not sure that kind of information have been made available. Though I have not been active in researching this daily. There are some very qualified people on YouTube that have been breaking down the few videos we have available. I've seen a few as they pop up. It's a very strange situation.

    Shooting down 1 friendly is bad, really really, really bad... it can happen. But it's bad. Shooting down 2 is unthinkable, and 3, we're into the territory of seriously considering it must have been deliberate.

    Maybe at some point in the future we will get a full rapport of what and how it happened.

    But the F18, if it had its radar on, should have seen that those were friendly contacts. Planes "squawk" a signal. And we use that to determine if it's a friendly plane or not. Planes also have what's called a RWR system. Radar Warning Reciever. It detects when you are hit by radar waves, and can thus give you an alarm that someone can see you. And this is also what will detect if you are locked on to by another plane.

    But it can't detect if something is visually locking on to you. Such as an IR seeking missile.

    People familiar with the F18 and the training those pilots recieve, are very suspicious because they know what the training entails. You have to KNOW what it is you're shooting at. If you're not entirely 100% sure, they say the procedure is to fly within visual range and visually identify the target. At that point. It should be obvious for the pilot that it's not a drone, it's an aircraft. And it should be obvious that it's first of all, not a mig29. And should also be obvious that Iran isn't going to fly migs inside of Kuwait, while cruising at 300 knots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks, I do appreciate the condensed version you have here over watching a bunch of youtube vids myself. The vids are so slow. Lol.

    I guess the maneuverability thing is fundamentally different in the air. On the ground, it's easier to change direction or what not the slower you are going. Mainly I think because you depend on friction against the ground to move in any direction. But in the air of course you are redirecting the air passing over a surface to turn first, then that changes the thrust vector which combine to maneuver. So speed increases the effectiveness of the first part.

    I wonder if you had some kind of very powerful burst jet that could provide significant up or down thrust paired with the normal up or down controls... could you relocate the aircraft enough for a missle to go by before it can adjust course. It would have to be timed by computer of course. And those things ain't light. So it would have to be a heck of a lot of burst thrust in a perpendicular direction. But theoretically it should be doable. Just likely not practical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Some planes also have thrust vectoring.

    And there are ways to defeat missiles. But not when you're caught with your pants down.

    "Typically" or at least what you would expect from two major powers. Is that you see the other plane on radar long before you ever see it with your eyes. You'll fire long range missiles, you assume they did the same. And then you start defensive maneuvers to bleed the missile out of energy.

    And if you're so close to that IR seeking missiles are an option. You'll probably have to pre-flare a lot hoping their missiles lock on to your flares instead of you.

    As to your theoretical idea. It is unfortunately not theoretically possible either. And you'll just have to take my word for it. But I don't think neither humans or aircrafts could survive the loads required

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    So why is it a legal target. As pointed out, no state of war exists. So the boat wasn't a legal target. But if we hand wave that away, not picking up the survivors is clearly against international law. And I can even hand wave the part about orders being legal, but I still want the names out there, I want the public to know that this captain left those men to die against every tradition of the navy and international laws/rules/guidelines. Public pressure can help ensure the next Captain stands up against such orders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    If the US had other ships nearby, closer than Sri Lankas ships, and still deliberately chose to not help the sailors in the water. That would be utterly reprehensible.

    As for the submarine, I can understand why they did not want to surface.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    They knew it was unarmed it was leaving an event that involved unarmed ships, an event the US backed out of and then had a sub attack a ship they knew to be unarmed.

    Seizure would be arguably legal, sinking it is not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (12 children)

    An unarmed boat is not a warship as per international law. They fly flags that state they are unarmed as this one was.

    Quit equivocating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (10 children)

    It's a military target, it isn't a warship. When deployed unarmed to naval exhibitions they are deployed as auxillary, it's the same as training ships.

    Because it was boarded and inspected to take part in a fleet week of sorts, yes.

    You can when it's beyond combat zones and flying flags signaling peaceful intention and being unarmed. There's a proportionality issue when it comes to striking military targets and moreover there's an obligation to rescue crew.

    It wasn't anywhere near Iran unless you are somehow under the impression sri lanka is adjacent to Iran. And Ukraine tends to abide by normal military conventions so yes if they knew it to be unarmed they would likely seize the ship and not sink it.

    Iran:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#/media/File:Iran_(orthographic_projection).svg

    Sri lanka:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#/media/File:Sri_Lanka_(orthographic_projection).svg

    Location of sinking : https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/3188/live/10450900-17e7-11f1-b048-c9424b2cf5fd.png.webp

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (8 children)

    They've given fair warning to literally every ship they've sunk. Laugh all you want but that's just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.

    You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that's made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.

    Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It's an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we're not even legally at war we're involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.

    They had a strike group nearby, try again.

    They're absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.

    Yes they absolutely do, you're talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that's ignoring the overstock of seie suits.

    You're contradicting yourself. You can't say they don't have X and then say what of they run out of X.

    Seriously quit equivocating dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it's a you meeting factually wrong.

    Duh.

    It was on both accounts.

    Neither is yours especially when you're wrong.

    Yes they were, you're talking about the modem use not their original intention.

    Again dena was not outside of Iran's waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they're not at all comparable.

    Yes my point is they didn't choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It's the law but yes sure it's good pr and the right thing to do.

    Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.

    It's a war crime and you're equivocating.

    Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn't even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you're making excuses for the inexcusable.

    There is, it's too rescue the crew because we aren't at war with them let alone total war.

    Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it's gross.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    It is when it's an auxillary ship carrying civilians bud. You are just wrong.

    Ya huh. The most successful subs of the class being designed to do just that is what? Coincidence?

    Also wrong but clearly so at least.

    Not allegedly, it was boarded and searched and Iran doesn't have the unrep ability the US does unless you're implying they docked somewhere and replenished munitions it was in fact unarmed. No one said preemptively, they didn't even notify them after the strike. Sri lanka said they did not add I do not trust the US because it has time and time again lied about it's actions.

    We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren't at war.

    By not calling it a war I'm saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.

    It was a war crime, auxillary ships are not taken in the same way an active fleet ship is. The US did have other ships in the area notably the pict which had just left sri lanka from the same fleet exhibition.

    That's equivocating which is why I keep saying it and it is in fact defending the indefensible.

    That is also a war crime, yes. Good job accepting that fact.

    Agreed, I didn't say this was an illegal order. I said it was a war because it clearly was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.

    By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.

    What's the insult? You feel insulted that I said going along with Trumps notion that this somehow isn't a war is defending him?

    You cannot seriously believe that what defines a war is your congress approval of it. So if Trump decides to bomb China. That's not Trump starting a war then? Because Congress didn't approve it?

    if that's genuinly your belief, I'm lost for words.

    You can start a war without a declaration of war. Sinking another country's warship is an act of war.

    The only reason Trump isn't calling it a war (except for all the times he genuinly referred to it as "war") is because that would be impeachable and illegal under US law.

    "Special combat operations" laughable. It's exactly what Russia claimed they're doing in Ukraine. "Oh we're not at war with Ukraine... it's just a special military operation".

    you're an actual idiot if you think im defending the sinking of the ship. im not. the only thing i've said is that it isn't a war crime. and neither is what followed

    you can think it's shitty, cowardly, reprehensable, disgusting, that's all fine. those are opinions. what isnt opinion is that it did not constitute a war crime.

    The scope of what a Party to the conflict is actually required to do on the basis of Article 18(1) will depend on the interpretation of the qualifier ‘possible’. What will be possible in the circumstances is inherently context-specific. Thus, the measures that must be taken in each case have to be determined in good faith, based on the circumstances and the information reasonably available to both the commanders on the spot or nearby and to the other organs acting on behalf of the Party to the conflict.

    In this regard, the fact that the obligation of Article 18(1) applies to the ‘Party to the conflict’ as a whole is critical. Thus, it may occur that the commander of a single warship or even of an entire naval task-force considers, in a good-faith assessment, that it is impossible to undertake, with the assets under his or her command, any of the activities required under Article 18. This does not, however, absolve those overseeing the commander’s operations (who will have a fuller picture of the situation and may be able to deploy other assets) from assessing what ‘possible measures’ can – and therefore must – be taken. Nor does it absolve the commander from considering other activities that are possible, such as alerting nearby coastal authorities or other vessels in the area or making an ‘appeal to the charity’ of neutral vessels in the sense of Article 21.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Bro the fact you're taken to multiple personal attacks but can't remember where or when is fairly telling.

    That's how it is legally defined in the United States like it or not that's how it actually works.

    It's not a belief it's the actual law.

    An act of war and declaration of war are two separate things. Taking a head of state into custody is an act of war and yet we aren't at war with them either.

    Duh, that doesn't change the fact that we are not at war.

    Yeah no shit, two shitty nations using the same playbook doesn't really change anything and Russian law allows Putin control over declaration of war, that simply isn't how it works in the US.

    You 100% are, and it 100% is a war crime and that is iirc the fifth personal attack on me.

    It's all of those things and a war crime.

    You've proven my point but apparently don't know you have. Though it is fairly amusing you insult my reading comprehension and quote that particular section without comprehending it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    You've repeatedly insulted me, no one said it was all claiming I support Trump.

    That was after you insulted me first boss, just reread the comments of you're confused about chronology.

    No they in fact do not, they can but that is not inevitable or obligate.

    In this country it is legally not a war unless declared by Congress. Casus belli does not obligate the declaration of war.

    Legally we aren't. That's not the only personal attack you've made either but you're just repeating yourself at this point. Yes those are war crimes as well, it does not mean the US is at war, clearly.

    It's not a belief, it's how the construction of the Constitution works.

    You clearly do not.

    No need for luck nor to condescend.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    The entire strikes are illegal as the United States is not in a state of war with Iran.

    Besides, "I was just following orders" has never and will never be accepted as a justification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    It might be illegal under US law. I wouldn't know. I'm not a US lawyer. But what I do know is that it's not a war crime. And it doesn't break any "international law".

    The international body that is supposed to look into these things would be the UN security counsel. At which both US and Russia are permanent members and both have veto powers. So good luck getting anything done there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    There was a precedent in Nuremberg you should look into

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)