I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer.
-
I think the Democrats need to make it clear that when they take power, they are going to hold generals and admirals personally accountable for what their troops have done. like, some very powerful guys need to be stripped of their ranks, court martialed, and imprisoned.
my fear is that the Democrats are not promising to do that because they don't intend to do that.
> hold generals and admirals personally accountable
What is the appropriate action to take for a general who gets an order like "sink that ship now" from the commander in chief? What exactly is the right thing to do, and are there examples of people who did the right thing in that situation?
I suppose the general should say "sinking that ship in the way this order says would be a war crime, so I'm not going to do it." If a general says that, then what happens next?
-
> hold generals and admirals personally accountable
What is the appropriate action to take for a general who gets an order like "sink that ship now" from the commander in chief? What exactly is the right thing to do, and are there examples of people who did the right thing in that situation?
I suppose the general should say "sinking that ship in the way this order says would be a war crime, so I'm not going to do it." If a general says that, then what happens next?
@eliasr one of the admirals in the Caribbean resigned. personally, I would rather go to jail than massacre innocent people, that's an easy choice. and refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct.
-
@eliasr one of the admirals in the Caribbean resigned. personally, I would rather go to jail than massacre innocent people, that's an easy choice. and refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct.
> refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct
Interesting. Does that apply on all levels, not only for generals and admirals but all ranks all the way down to the private soldiers?
-
> refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct
Interesting. Does that apply on all levels, not only for generals and admirals but all ranks all the way down to the private soldiers?
@eliasr I am not an expert. here's one source, from people who work on this issue. https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/faq-on-refusing-illegal-orders/
obviously under the Trump administration, you would probably still be punished and it would be devastating for your career and personal life.
-
@eliasr one of the admirals in the Caribbean resigned. personally, I would rather go to jail than massacre innocent people, that's an easy choice. and refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct.
-
@eliasr I am not an expert. here's one source, from people who work on this issue. https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/faq-on-refusing-illegal-orders/
obviously under the Trump administration, you would probably still be punished and it would be devastating for your career and personal life.
@peter thanks!
I'm thinking that on one hand it would make total sense for all US military personnel to quit their jobs at this point, because they don't want to participate in war crimes and the current commander in chief (trump) is clealy insane and has no problem commiting war crimes. But on the other hand, that's easy for me to say, it's something else for someone who depends on their job in the US military to provide for their family. It's a really shitty situation for them.
-
I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
@peter Behind the Bastards covered Hegseth's book last year in an episode. In the book he lays out exactly how he'll run things and why. Its a useful episode.
The thing people still refuse to reckon with is that Hegseth, Elliot Rodgers, & Harris and Klebold, and all the other violence of recent decades come from the same place. The same toxic, hurting, loser position of "if only I did this, I'd win, I'd show them".
We didn't solve school shootings but we should have. Now these boys are men*.
-
I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
@peter Well, as much as it hurts to realize it’s exactly in line with what to expect from the people in charge.
It’s rare with bullies that are also psycopaths but they obviously exist,
The real question is why is this madness allowed to continue?
-
@peter Behind the Bastards covered Hegseth's book last year in an episode. In the book he lays out exactly how he'll run things and why. Its a useful episode.
The thing people still refuse to reckon with is that Hegseth, Elliot Rodgers, & Harris and Klebold, and all the other violence of recent decades come from the same place. The same toxic, hurting, loser position of "if only I did this, I'd win, I'd show them".
We didn't solve school shootings but we should have. Now these boys are men*.
@peter *Character limit neccessitated brevity and lack of clarity.
What I mean is that, the mindset of folks like the shooters I mentioned is present in a lot of grown men like Hegseth. They outgrew schools but they still apply the ideas in manifestos (I've read Rodgers' because it happened at my school).
And now they're in politics and the military.
They go after the helpless and vulnerable because it makes them feel strong. Like they're proving a point.
-
@peter *Character limit neccessitated brevity and lack of clarity.
What I mean is that, the mindset of folks like the shooters I mentioned is present in a lot of grown men like Hegseth. They outgrew schools but they still apply the ideas in manifestos (I've read Rodgers' because it happened at my school).
And now they're in politics and the military.
They go after the helpless and vulnerable because it makes them feel strong. Like they're proving a point.
@peter In his book, Hegseth thinks we lost the wars in the Middle East because we weren't allowed to commit war crimes. He thinks that war crimes are stays on power rather than the warnings of ultimate doom that they are.
A war crime is "don't put your hand on the hot stove, you'll burn yourself" but he thinks there's some winning secret there.
*edited a typo
-
I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
@peter One of many war crimes. If these two dictators, these new Hilter/Mussolini arrogance is not stopped, the entire world is going to suffer nuclear fallout.
-
I think the Democrats need to make it clear that when they take power, they are going to hold generals and admirals personally accountable for what their troops have done. like, some very powerful guys need to be stripped of their ranks, court martialed, and imprisoned.
my fear is that the Democrats are not promising to do that because they don't intend to do that.
I fear you are right. The D's will have their hands full trying to prosecute the R kleptocrats. And they cannot risk alienating the military, who were, essentially, following orders.
You might be interested in my Medium article about why the D's cannot save the USA:
We need a new way. Follow my byline if you are interested.
-
@gotofritz it was unarmed because it was participating in naval exercises, at India's invitation. the US was also supposed to participate, and knew it was unarmed.
-
I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
@peter that's evangelical christians at the country's (and military?!) helm for you
-
> hold generals and admirals personally accountable
What is the appropriate action to take for a general who gets an order like "sink that ship now" from the commander in chief? What exactly is the right thing to do, and are there examples of people who did the right thing in that situation?
I suppose the general should say "sinking that ship in the way this order says would be a war crime, so I'm not going to do it." If a general says that, then what happens next?
@eliasr @peter
The problem is that through firings, forced "voluntary" retirements, and sidelining, Trump and Hegseth have mostly purged the senior ranks of those who would push back. But it's not unheard of for men/women of honor to do the right thing, even if it means risking punishment... or death
"Op-Ed: A forgotten hero stopped the My Lai massacre 50 years ago today" https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wiener-my-lai-hugh-thompson-20180316-story.html -
I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
@peter I was thinking of the commander and officers on that sub. Did they want to sink that ship? Did they think it was justified?
-
I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
@peter What bothers me most is how routine all of this has become.
Even a token declaration of war, that we know would pass in Congress anyway, is too much to ask. And the same people standing aside will be reelected en masse in a few months.
-
> refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct
Interesting. Does that apply on all levels, not only for generals and admirals but all ranks all the way down to the private soldiers?
-
-
@Illuminatus @peter I feel zero sympathy at all for the commander of that sub, who issued that order. Maybe they were given direct orders to sail to such and such a location and destroy a particular vessel without knowing anything beyond that, but they either decided to not pick up survivors of their own volition or obeyed an order to destroy the vessel, film the act (which also serves to have documented it as a crime) and not pick up survivors.
️