General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHegseth told U.S. soldiers in Iraq to ignore legal advice on rules of engagement
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/02/hegseth-us-soldiers-iraq-rules-engagement"Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were permitted to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement.
The anecdote is contained in a book Hegseth wrote last year in which he also repeatedly railed against the constraints placed on American warfighters by the laws of war and the Geneva conventions.
....
Prof David M Crane, a former chief prosecutor of the UN special court for Sierra Leone, distinguished scholar in residence at Syracuse University College of Law and an army veteran with 20 years service, including stints as a JAG attorney, said obeying rules of engagement was crucial and that those who break them should face sanction.
After the tragedy of My Lai in 1968, we have tried to avoid another one and prosecute those that do in fact stray. And that happened particularly in Iraq, at Fallujah, and other places in defense, where we had some marines go south and commit war crimes, and theyre prosecuted for it, he said.
.. .
In
his book, however, Hegseth called into question the entire edifice of laws of conflict, writing: If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, arent we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think..... (more)
Coldwater
(730 posts)
malaise
(291,686 posts)sinkingfeeling
(56,948 posts)BOSSHOG
(44,314 posts)Tell our Soldiers to kill em all, let your MAGA god sort them out. We dont need know stinking rules. Its hard to follow rules.
Wednesdays
(21,493 posts)-- Bridge on the River Kwai
poozwah
(388 posts)i think the defense secretary/war secretary/macho man is in need of a night voyage off the coast of Venezuela.
travelingthrulife
(4,075 posts)IronLionZion
(50,573 posts)Attilatheblond
(7,991 posts)That protection works both ways, protects OUR troops from certain barbaric treatments along with protecting enemy combatants, but the drunk sadist just doesn't think that far ahead.
dalton99a
(91,488 posts)liberalgunwilltravel
(1,029 posts)Then I am sure he wouldn't mind being summarily executed, right?
Martin Eden
(15,246 posts)On Sep 30 at Quantico, all our top military leaders from around the world were gathered to hear speeches from Trump and Hegseth. Among his usual partisan rants and off topic rambling, Trump said he wanted to use US cities as "training grounds" for the military.
Hegseth in his speech said the old rules of engagement would be discarded to take the handcuffs off our military so they could do what they do best -- "kill people and break things."
Pretty straightforward to add each one of those statements and come up with two, which I'm sure Mark Kelly and the other five Democratic lawmakers did. Their video was not some random partisan attack; they saw illegal orders already being carried out off the coast of Venezuela, and felt duty bound to remind our military leaders of their sworn oath and what is in the US Code of Military Justice.
Dread Pirate Roberts
(1,964 posts)and root for the Nazis? Just a guess.
BattleRow
(2,073 posts)FarPoint
(14,413 posts)He did go thru the Congress to be affirmed....Did anyone hear/ or know of this Iraq view by Hegseth then? f so, was this explored by the Congress then????
Tanuki
(16,229 posts)and other adjudicated war criminals.
https://time.com/7176342/pete-hegseth-donald-trump-pardon-war-crimes-military/
..."Hegseth, a military veteran, staunch defender of Trumps "America First" agenda, and an outspoken critic of what he calls the militarys "woke" culture, has built a career around challenging the military establishment. He held an influential role in advocating for Trump to intervene on behalf of service members in three cases involving war crime accusations in 2019cases that divided the military and ignited fierce debates over the limits of executive power and military accountability.
...
Gallagher was charged by the Navy with multiple crimes, including shooting civilians in Iraq, using a knife to kill a teenage Islamic State prisoner in Iraq in 2017, and threatening to kill fellow SEALs if they reported him. Gallagher was acquitted of murder by a military jury but convicted on one count of posing for photographs with the deceased body. His rank was reduced by one step as punishment. Trump reversed Gallaghers demotion, restoring his rank and benefits.
....
The Washington Post reported at the time that Hegseth had personally lobbied Trump on the service members behalf, making frequent appeals through his Fox News platform and arguing that that the military has been tainted by political correctness. "You train someone to go and fight and kill the enemy, then they kill the enemy the way someone doesnt like, and then we put them in jail," Hegseth argued on his Fox News program in Nov. 2019."...(more)
FarPoint
(14,413 posts)Retrograde
(11,360 posts)Shady Vance was the tie-breaker
FarPoint
(14,413 posts)at least the Democrats did their best.... Vance needs to own this too then....
Johonny
(25,162 posts)sop
(17,112 posts)The decree stated the enemy was to be "ruthlessly eliminated in battle or during attempts to escape...suppressed by the army on the spot by using extreme measures, till [their] annihilation." That every officer..."will be entitled to perform execution(s) without trial, without any formalities, on any person suspected of having a hostile attitude towards the Germans." And German soldiers who committed "crimes against humanity are to be exempted from criminal responsibility, even if they commit acts punishable according to German law."
Bo Zarts
(26,215 posts)The crux of MAGAism. It is only us, we, and me-me-me. It is Melania's cape .. "I REALLY DON'T CARE. DO U?"
travelingthrulife
(4,075 posts)Attilatheblond
(7,991 posts)Of course, environment/upbringing has impact too, but genes are the framework individuals work with.
The notion of a singular empathy gene simplifying such a multifaceted human trait is not supported by scientific evidence. Empathy emerges from the subtle contributions of many different genes interacting in complex ways. Genetic influences involve predispositions, meaning certain genetic variations might make an individual more inclined towards empathic responses.
These genetic influences establish a foundational range for an individuals potential empathic capacity. However, they do not determine a fixed outcome. Instead, genetic factors create a biological framework upon which life experiences build.
Key Genes Associated with Empathy
Research has identified several genes and genetic pathways associated with various aspects of empathy and prosocial behaviors. The oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) has garnered attention; oxytocin is a neuropeptide often called the love hormone due to its role in social bonding and trust. Variations in the OXTR gene can influence how effectively oxytocin signals are received in the brain, potentially affecting social cognition and emotional responsiveness.
The arginine vasopressin receptor 1A gene (AVPR1A) is another gene of interest. Vasopressin, like oxytocin, is a neuropeptide involved in social behaviors, including pair bonding and aggression. Differences in the AVPR1A gene have been linked to variations in social communication and altruistic behaviors. Genes involved in the serotonin system, such as the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4), have also been explored. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that regulates mood and social behavior, and specific variants of SLC6A4 have been associated with differing sensitivities to social cues and emotional experiences.
spike jones
(1,982 posts)dingosatemyusername
(103 posts)ecstatic
(34,992 posts)First, there's nothing arbitrary about it unless some military leaders are breaking the rules while others enforce the rules. If everyone in command is following and enforcing the rules, there shouldn't be a problem.
Second, if we adopt an "anything goes" stance, guess what? That affects the safety of our troops. Hell, our conduct affects the safety of the world as well. How can the US convince other nations to follow a code of conduct when we're regularly violating the same standards?
Shit... now I'm back to being so disappointed in so many people. Whiskey pete *openly" confessed to breaking the law and yet he was still confirmed?! There's no fucking excuse for this shit. Especially now in the age of AI--which could have summarized and found all the red flags in his book within seconds. The senators who confirmed pete need to be held accountable.
Wednesdays
(21,493 posts)Well, there's the rub. Who's going to hold them accountable?
Impeachment? Yeah, right. You'd need 19 Repug senators to convict.
txwhitedove
(4,302 posts)whim saying they saw, knew, and controlled all..., but when questioned by realism, say they didn't know, weren't informed, say what?? Who The Fuck is in charge??
progree
(12,644 posts)Now posted in LBN --
Video of Hegseth Telling Military Not to Follow 'Illegal Orders' Resurfaces, Newsweek, 12/3/25
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143576230
Buddyzbuddy
(1,992 posts)Think before you act.
EAB
(9 posts)It´s clear that Pete was offended that soldiers in Iraq would have to wait until someone with an RPG actually pointed the weapon before shooting them, that it was terrible that people couldn't just be chill when strangers walked around with lethal weapons.
In other words, good old Pete was offended that soldiers should have to live like parents out in public with their kids in open carry states.