US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again. This wasn’t an illegal order. There’s nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They’re targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.
If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they’d be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.
Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don’t have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they’re doing.
So unless you’re given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people’s lives may very well depend on it. I don’t think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.
You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you’ve laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.
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.
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.
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
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.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don’t actually think countries can just put up an “unarmed flag” and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I’m genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn’t carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they’re unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an “unarmed flag”. Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it’s unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around…
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.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
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.
Hot take, if you elect a person who showed in their first term a total disrespect for international, national, and martial law maybe the kind of people you have in the armed forces aren’t likely to be any better. The smart, moral people who also were high enough in the chain of command to matter have likely been purged or jumped ship to something less problematic.
The naive belief that any laws matter at this late hour is hard to understand, and harder to respect. This isn’t going to blow over and “go back to normal.” Which incidentally wasn’t great either.
the whole thing about following illegal orders is complete bullshit and impossible for military personnel to follow… it’s just a pretence so the Murican military can claim moral superiority
Honestly, I don’t expect the rank and file members to make a stand. But a sub captain… I do. And from that person all the way up the chain that gave the order. I don’t expect this DOJ to do anything. So I just want names for now. And I want them public so those people can’t go anywhere without being known as the ones who failed to stop the illegal order.
Who was the sub captian that obeyed the illegal order? Name rank and serial number please.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again. This wasn’t an illegal order. There’s nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They’re targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.
If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they’d be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.
Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don’t have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they’re doing.
So unless you’re given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people’s lives may very well depend on it. I don’t think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.
You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you’ve laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I understand you feel strongly about what happened. But that is not going to change that it was a legal target in war.
There are lots of things that are legal, but still cowardly and shitty to do.
There’s no law that says you can’t rip off a giant fart outside a restaurants outdoor serving area. It would be legal. But incredibly shitty.
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.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don’t actually think countries can just put up an “unarmed flag” and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I’m genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn’t carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they’re unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an “unarmed flag”. Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it’s unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around…
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
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
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.
Hot take, if you elect a person who showed in their first term a total disrespect for international, national, and martial law maybe the kind of people you have in the armed forces aren’t likely to be any better. The smart, moral people who also were high enough in the chain of command to matter have likely been purged or jumped ship to something less problematic.
The naive belief that any laws matter at this late hour is hard to understand, and harder to respect. This isn’t going to blow over and “go back to normal.” Which incidentally wasn’t great either.
Well, I less care about prosecution that isn’t going to happen, and more about name and shame. That can do a lot to shape future behaviour.
the whole thing about following illegal orders is complete bullshit and impossible for military personnel to follow… it’s just a pretence so the Murican military can claim moral superiority
Honestly, I don’t expect the rank and file members to make a stand. But a sub captain… I do. And from that person all the way up the chain that gave the order. I don’t expect this DOJ to do anything. So I just want names for now. And I want them public so those people can’t go anywhere without being known as the ones who failed to stop the illegal order.