Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the apparent war crime was legal even as she said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth knew nothing about it.

The White House on Monday shifted the blame for killing the survivors of a U.S. military strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and onto the commanding admiral.

Killing survivors of a destroyed vessel is literally an example of a war crime in the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual reads.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, nevertheless, repeatedly stated that it was legal – even as she further claimed, as Donald Trump did Sunday, that Hegseth was unaware that it had happened.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Technicality question. Doesn’t the sec def make the rules for the manual. Like he can just change them on a whim. And the manual isn’t law, congress didn’t vote on it right? So it might technically be legal under US law. Though I doubt the airhead knows anything about that. As for war crimes and such… the US has been killing whoever it wants for a long time now. But… throwing the admiral under the bus… that could have real consequences that I can’t wait to see.

    • UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      The manual is the interpretation of the meaning of existing laws. Its not new law and changing the manual doesn’t change the law. And neither Hesgeth or Trump have the authority to change those laws just because they want to.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        So I looked it up. The DoD owns the manual. They can change it if they want. And it is an interpretation of international law. So technically, what was done is legal per US law. International law is pretty sketchy. Since it lacks robust enforcement, it pretty much means nothing unless a world power decides it does. So she may technically be right on that one. But of course the question shouldn’t be if it was legal. It should be was it “right”. Which it most certainly was not.

        • UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Right, except the problem is that it creates a very easy argument under which everyone involved COULD be prosecuted. Probably not by THIS DOD, but we still have elections in America and this makes it easy for the next bunch.