Post B106CKIXCTbPRYX4hE by oneloop@mastodon.xyz
 (DIR) More posts by oneloop@mastodon.xyz
 (DIR) Post #B105tKjPMf9THm2u2K by rms@mastodon.xyz
       2025-12-07T09:11:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       [1/2] https://theintercept.com/2025/12/02/hegseth-boat-strikes-war-crime-venezuela/*Entire Chain of Command [from Hegseth down to the soldiers who fired the shots] Could Be [prosecuted under actual US military law] for Killing Boat Strike Survivors, Sources Say,* Thus, the statement that soldiers are allowed to refuse an order to commit a war crime is half the point. The other half is that those who receive an order to commit a crime must refuse, lest they make themselves criminals and
       
 (DIR) Post #B105thgM2BNKSxnHyC by rms@mastodon.xyz
       2025-12-07T09:11:07Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       [2/2] later be prosecuted for those crimes. "I was obeying orders" is not a defense. One unfortunate consequence of this situation is that their only remaining way to avoid such prosecution is to have a president who protects criminals. That could become a system that generates soldiers desperate to be pardoned by the president for crimes they committed for per.
       
 (DIR) Post #B106CKIXCTbPRYX4hE by oneloop@mastodon.xyz
       2025-12-07T09:14:30Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @rms Richard you're right, as usual. And this is not a defense of the soldiers, but consider the opposite scenario: The guy with the guy refuses to shoot, there ISN'T any outrage in the media, and he ruins his life for refusing to follow orders. I think it's a lose-lose situation that the soldier is in, even if you don't consider what is moral.