What a stupid ragebait headline. Of course a geneneral is not going to even suggest they would disobey a hypothetical lawful order. Why would someone end their career for some journalists gocha question?
Says nothing about his private thoughts or what he would actually do. Zero information value.
They weren’t ordered to bomb a wedding, they either thought it was something else or they missed another target. They just don’t give a shit that they bombed a wedding.
You see, if a single guest is on their kill lists that means anyone near them is a “valid military target by association” and “acceptable collateral damage”
It’s technically not illegal to invade another country unprovoked. It’s illegal to do war crimes though. You can invade a country and annex it without committing warcrimes.
No it is literally illegal to invade another country unprovoked, the crime is called “war of aggression”. It is one of the foundational pillars of international law. The Nuremberg judgement called aggressive war the “supreme international crime”. This is the reason US shuns and delegitimizes the ICC and the ICJ, the two bodies supposedly enforcing international law.
It is also separately illegal to annex another country even by mere threat of force, even if no actual force was used.
War isn’t actually illegal. I know it feels like it should be, but it really isn’t. People say a war is “illegal” because I suppose they feel like it carries more weight than to just say it’s “immoral”. I guess it’s somehow comforting to people to think that somehow some lawyers could prevent countries from going to war somehow.
But there are illegal wars. Iran right now is illegal it wasn’t approved by Congress. Trump is basically using legal bullfuckery and a lack of consequences to do that shit.
He very clearly said that such an order from the POTUS would be illegal, and that no one in the chain of command would consider it as a legal order. The POTUS can not giver a legal order to attack a country that the US has a peace agreement with, and both countries are covered by the NATO agreement.
To see why this is definitely within the powers the president has, swap “Canada” for “Vietnam”, “Iraq” or “Iran”. For more detail, you’d have to refer to the actual laws of war the US government recognises.
Canada and America are bound bu the NATO agreement. Under American law that makes any order to attack Canada not a legal order. Any military officer who abides by that order commits an offense under American law. That is why it is ‘preposterous’. That was a factually correct term, not his opinion.
There isn’t any nation where the military can just disagree. Even under a military junta, it’s only the junta itself that gets a say; everyone lower down must follow orders (even the ones involving atrocities, in that case. The West is weird for exempting something).
That said, yeah, America isn’t looking so good these days.
In America it is illegal for a member of the military to obey a command that is not legal. If they do obey, or even issue a command that is not legal, they can be prosecuted and if found guilty imprisoned.
If you don’t believe that both the US and Canada were founded on unspeakable genocide (which inspired the holocaust BTW) and slavery you are delusional. North Korea (for all its faults) was founded by those who resisted and fought the genocidal oppressors. Read a damn book.
Because its a hypothetical where the journalist didnt specify “unlawful order”. Its a bs gocha question. There are hypothetical situations where it would be lawful, regardless of how likely.
What a stupid ragebait headline. Of course a geneneral is not going to even suggest they would disobey a hypothetical lawful order. Why would someone end their career for some journalists gocha question?
Says nothing about his private thoughts or what he would actually do. Zero information value.
If anything, I’d give him credit for not saying yes. Hell in the current climate that might get you removed.
How is that a lawful order??
How is bombing a wedding a lawful order?
The military is trained to be mindless sychophants.
They weren’t ordered to bomb a wedding, they either thought it was something else or they missed another target. They just don’t give a shit that they bombed a wedding.
Source?
Cuz here’s one of many they did after 9/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre
You see, if a single guest is on their kill lists that means anyone near them is a “valid military target by association” and “acceptable collateral damage”
It’s technically not illegal to invade another country unprovoked. It’s illegal to do war crimes though. You can invade a country and annex it without committing warcrimes.
No it is literally illegal to invade another country unprovoked, the crime is called “war of aggression”. It is one of the foundational pillars of international law. The Nuremberg judgement called aggressive war the “supreme international crime”. This is the reason US shuns and delegitimizes the ICC and the ICJ, the two bodies supposedly enforcing international law.
It is also separately illegal to annex another country even by mere threat of force, even if no actual force was used.
I guess if your shit hole country doesn’t adhere to international law.
It isn’t, but Congress is pretending it is which is the same thing.
War isn’t actually illegal. I know it feels like it should be, but it really isn’t. People say a war is “illegal” because I suppose they feel like it carries more weight than to just say it’s “immoral”. I guess it’s somehow comforting to people to think that somehow some lawyers could prevent countries from going to war somehow.
But there are illegal wars. Iran right now is illegal it wasn’t approved by Congress. Trump is basically using legal bullfuckery and a lack of consequences to do that shit.
Congress allows the executive branch to do so, this war is not an abuse of the legal system it’s being used as intended
Yes any order from the POTUS to attack a country that America has a peace accord with is not a legal order.
He very clearly said that such an order from the POTUS would be illegal, and that no one in the chain of command would consider it as a legal order. The POTUS can not giver a legal order to attack a country that the US has a peace agreement with, and both countries are covered by the NATO agreement.
Lawful /= you agree with it, basically.
To see why this is definitely within the powers the president has, swap “Canada” for “Vietnam”, “Iraq” or “Iran”. For more detail, you’d have to refer to the actual laws of war the US government recognises.
Canada and America are bound bu the NATO agreement. Under American law that makes any order to attack Canada not a legal order. Any military officer who abides by that order commits an offense under American law. That is why it is ‘preposterous’. That was a factually correct term, not his opinion.
Sounds like it’s high time America was dissolved and balkanized, then.
There isn’t any nation where the military can just disagree. Even under a military junta, it’s only the junta itself that gets a say; everyone lower down must follow orders (even the ones involving atrocities, in that case. The West is weird for exempting something).
That said, yeah, America isn’t looking so good these days.
In America it is illegal for a member of the military to obey a command that is not legal. If they do obey, or even issue a command that is not legal, they can be prosecuted and if found guilty imprisoned.
It never did. It was founded on genocide and slavery.
Yes, .ml person. I’m sure you believe that. And also that North Korea is better, somehow. 'Nuff said.
Edit: Clearly, the username is ironic, with this much effort to get into a fight.
If you don’t believe that both the US and Canada were founded on unspeakable genocide (which inspired the holocaust BTW) and slavery you are delusional. North Korea (for all its faults) was founded by those who resisted and fought the genocidal oppressors. Read a damn book.
I believe in history, lol? Why are you bringing up North Korea?
Is your brain okay?
Edit: clearly this person wasn’t interested in a conversation at all, based on my instance, lol?
Because its a hypothetical where the journalist didnt specify “unlawful order”. Its a bs gocha question. There are hypothetical situations where it would be lawful, regardless of how likely.