Liberal Forum

Huey » 08 Dec 2025, 6:18 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2025, 6:18 pm

1. The boats are stateless.  They are not the flying of a country.  Rules are different.  Treated like they are committing piracy if participating in illegal acts.

2.  As far as one, we are not it a declared war, hence, not war crime.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention ... clos_e.pdf

===============

Article 88 of UNCLOS reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes. While maritime law does authorize certain enforcement operations, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has held that force is meant to be a last resort. Rubio said Trump had the option to interdict the ship and instead chose to destroy it. Rubio’s comments, and the September 10 report that the ship changed its course and was hit multiple times before it sank, suggest that US military personnel could have safely interdicted the ship. If so, force was not necessary. In that vein, Mark Nevitt, a retired commander with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, has observed that the Coast Guard is the United States’ primary maritime law enforcement agency, and that it has the authority “to search, seize property, and arrest persons suspected of violating US law upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction.” For use of force, the Coast Guard follows “strict rules” relying on warning and disabling shots. Those rules do not appear to have been followed in this case.2. 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 12:11 pm

They are not flying the flag of ANY nation.  You better check the link I gave you.

--------------------------------------------

Use of force (jus ad bellum): Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The main exception to this prohibition falls under Article 51, which allows the exercise of the right of self-defense. Some states view Article 51 as allowing use of force against a non-state armed group on the territory of a second state if that second state is “unwilling or unable” to address the armed group. Trump’s September 4 letter invoked both self-defense and the “unwilling or unable” test. However, the targeted ship does not appear to have been flying under a state’s flag, nor did the attack occur in territorial waters of any state. Because this action apparently fell outside any state or territory and was against a non-state actor, it would seem to fall outside this particular legal framework. Nevertheless, while no country has claimed the individuals killed, the strike could (though not necessarily) be considered an armed attack on the country of which the individuals are nationals. In that case, the strike does not seem to have met the imminence, necessity, and proportionality requirements under Article 51. Notably, any use of force under Article 51 requires a report to the UN Security Council, which the United States does not appear to have issued so far.

Zeets2 » 09 Dec 2025, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 12:22 pm

Damn right I cheer for the bombing of Gaza, but you're a fool to think that requires selling my soul to anyone! 
Guess you've sold YOUR soul to the devil for supporting the Hamas terrorists who tortured, burned alive infants, and beheaded and murdered 1200 innocent civilian Jews on Oct. 7th. 
I cheer for the killing of terrorists wherever they're found.  
Haven't I made that clear enough for you to understand?

You, on the other hand, cheer for the terrorists who live to murder Jews, because you're an avowed Jew-hater.
And someone who hates Jews, hates Trump, and hates Netanyahu for defending his country has no business or validity to quote the Bible.
See the difference between a Trump lover and a Jew hater?:

 

your soul is doomed not saved. children did not attack on 10/7.  who knows this? Christ knows this. you have no right to tell me not to say what Christ said. people like you want Christ to be ignored. 

jerrab » 09 Dec 2025, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 12:32 pm

===============

Article 88 of UNCLOS reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes. While maritime law does authorize certain enforcement operations, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has held that force is meant to be a last resort. Rubio said Trump had the option to interdict the ship and instead chose to destroy it. Rubio’s comments, and the September 10 report that the ship changed its course and was hit multiple times before it sank, suggest that US military personnel could have safely interdicted the ship. If so, force was not necessary. In that vein, Mark Nevitt, a retired commander with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, has observed that the Coast Guard is the United States’ primary maritime law enforcement agency, and that it has the authority “to search, seize property, and arrest persons suspected of violating US law upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction.” For use of force, the Coast Guard follows “strict rules” relying on warning and disabling shots. Those rules do not appear to have been followed in this case.2. 

Just post what countries flag they are flying under.

Thanks.
 

jerrab » 09 Dec 2025, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 12:36 pm

--------------------------------------------

Use of force (jus ad bellum): Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The main exception to this prohibition falls under Article 51, which allows the exercise of the right of self-defense. Some states view Article 51 as allowing use of force against a non-state armed group on the territory of a second state if that second state is “unwilling or unable” to address the armed group. Trump’s September 4 letter invoked both self-defense and the “unwilling or unable” test. However, the targeted ship does not appear to have been flying under a state’s flag, nor did the attack occur in territorial waters of any state. Because this action apparently fell outside any state or territory and was against a non-state actor, it would seem to fall outside this particular legal framework. Nevertheless, while no country has claimed the individuals killed, the strike could (though not necessarily) be considered an armed attack on the country of which the individuals are nationals. In that case, the strike does not seem to have met the imminence, necessity, and proportionality requirements under Article 51. Notably, any use of force under Article 51 requires a report to the UN Security Council, which the United States does not appear to have issued so far.

Just post what flag they are flying under.   What you are positing is not relevant to the discussion.  Look for words like stateless vessel and flag.  What country?

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 12:11 pm

They are not flying the flag of ANY nation.  You better check the link I gave you.

---------------------------

If there were an armed conflict between the United States and a non-state armed group and IHL applied, and if the US targeted a boat of individuals for the same reported reason—that is, the individuals were alleged to be involved in drug trafficking—it still would most likely be unlawful. Such individuals would likely not be lawful targets under international law, barring evidence that they were combatants or directly participating in hostilities. Likewise, if the boat does not have a military function, a strike would not be a militarily necessity nor would it be proportional to any military advantage anticipated. Indeed, even if the individuals were part of the non-state armed group party to the armed conflict, if they were not taking direct part in hostilities against the United States, a strike in this situation could be considered a war crime of murder under the US War Crimes Act and international law. 4. International Human Rights Law (IHRL): The United States is a signatory to human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 of the covenant establishes that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life, and Article 4 specifies that states cannot make derogations (that is, formal exemptions) related to this right, even in times of public emergency. As noted by former US State Department Attorney-Adviser Brian Finucane, the US Department of Defense Operational Law Handbook views the prohibition of murder under IHRL as a peremptory rule under customary international law, meaning a rule “so fundamental and universally accepted that [it does] not permit any derogation, even by treaty.” Assessed according to these criteria, this strike appears to have been an extrajudicial killing in violation of IHRL and Department of Defense provisions.5. Domestic law: Finucane also notes that Executive Order 12333 prohibits assassinations by anyone employed by the US government or working on its behalf

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:22 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 12:11 pm

They are not flying the flag of ANY nation.  You better check the link I gave you.

---------------------------

If there were an armed conflict between the United States and a non-state armed group and IHL applied, and if the US targeted a boat of individuals for the same reported reason—that is, the individuals were alleged to be involved in drug trafficking—it still would most likely be unlawful. Such individuals would likely not be lawful targets under international law, barring evidence that they were combatants or directly participating in hostilities. Likewise, if the boat does not have a military function, a strike would not be a militarily necessity nor would it be proportional to any military advantage anticipated. Indeed, even if the individuals were part of the non-state armed group party to the armed conflict, if they were not taking direct part in hostilities against the United States, a strike in this situation could be considered a war crime of murder under the US War Crimes Act and international law. 4. International Human Rights Law (IHRL): The United States is a signatory to human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 of the covenant establishes that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life, and Article 4 specifies that states cannot make derogations (that is, formal exemptions) related to this right, even in times of public emergency. As noted by former US State Department Attorney-Adviser Brian Finucane, the US Department of Defense Operational Law Handbook views the prohibition of murder under IHRL as a peremptory rule under customary international law, meaning a rule “so fundamental and universally accepted that [it does] not permit any derogation, even by treaty.” Assessed according to these criteria, this strike appears to have been an extrajudicial killing in violation of IHRL and Department of Defense provisions.5. Domestic law: Finucane also notes that Executive Order 12333 prohibits assassinations by anyone employed by the US government or working on its behalf

 

You still haven't checked the link.

 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:13 pm

Just post what countries flag they are flying under.

Thanks.

. Finucane cites executive branch legal doctrine as defining assassination as including “the targeted killing of individuals,” and notes potential exceptions for self-defense or for lethal force consistent with IHL. Rubio’s statement that Trump chose to destroy rather than interdict the ships, and the ship’s reported course reversal, imply that US military personnel could have safely interdicted the ship. Assuming that was the case, lethal force was not necessary for self-defense. The attack therefore appears to violate the US prohibition on assassinations, as well as other US laws.Ultimately, the strike—and the language used by administration officials about the strike—paint a troubling picture regarding how the United States will approach the TDA and related groups. While it is of course important to hold transnational criminal organizations like the TDA accountable through judicial processes, lethal force is, according to guidance from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), meant to be “a measure of last resort.” Consider the case of former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who presided over a policy of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects and now finds hiGiven the current facts, the ICC is unable to exercise jurisdiction over this strike. For it to have jurisdiction over any attacks going forward, there would need to be a confirmed armed conflict and/or widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population—or evidence of other categories of crimes under the Rome Statute—among other requirementsnity. 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:22 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:13 pm

Just post what countries flag they are flying under.

Thanks.

. Finucane cites executive branch legal doctrine as defining assassination as including “the targeted killing of individuals,” and notes potential exceptions for self-defense or for lethal force consistent with IHL. Rubio’s statement that Trump chose to destroy rather than interdict the ships, and the ship’s reported course reversal, imply that US military personnel could have safely interdicted the ship. Assuming that was the case, lethal force was not necessary for self-defense. The attack therefore appears to violate the US prohibition on assassinations, as well as other US laws.Ultimately, the strike—and the language used by administration officials about the strike—paint a troubling picture regarding how the United States will approach the TDA and related groups. While it is of course important to hold transnational criminal organizations like the TDA accountable through judicial processes, lethal force is, according to guidance from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), meant to be “a measure of last resort.” Consider the case of former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who presided over a policy of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects and now finds hiGiven the current facts, the ICC is unable to exercise jurisdiction over this strike. For it to have jurisdiction over any attacks going forward, there would need to be a confirmed armed conflict and/or widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population—or evidence of other categories of crimes under the Rome Statute—among other requirementsnity. 

 

Just post what countries flag they are flying under.

Thanks.

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:17 pm

You still haven't checked the link.

=========================

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... oat-legal/

. For now, any legal accountability for the boat strike would most likely involve processes under domestic law—whether under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or in civilian courts. The domestic courts of the victims may also have jurisdiction.As Nevitt noted, this “preemptive lethal strike against an alleged drug boat continues the White House’s effort to blur the lines between law enforcement and the U.S. military’s missions and authorities.” Going forward, certain situations—imminent threat of attack against the United States, UN Security Council authorization, or the consent of the state where US strikes would occur—could mean that US military force outside US territory would be lawful. In the context of an international armed conflict, military operations would be lawful so long as they complied with IHL. However, absent these situations, from a legal perspective, the actions of the TDA and other transnational criminal organizations should be a matter of law enforcement. As such, lethal force is reserved only for when, as per the ICRC, it is “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”
mself in International Criminal Court (ICC) custody subject to an arrest warrant for crimes against huma
 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:22 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:17 pm

You still haven't checked the link.

=========================

. For now, any legal accountability for the boat strike would most likely involve processes under domestic law—whether under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or in civilian courts. The domestic courts of the victims may also have jurisdiction.As Nevitt noted, this “preemptive lethal strike against an alleged drug boat continues the White House’s effort to blur the lines between law enforcement and the U.S. military’s missions and authorities.” Going forward, certain situations—imminent threat of attack against the United States, UN Security Council authorization, or the consent of the state where US strikes would occur—could mean that US military force outside US territory would be lawful. In the context of an international armed conflict, military operations would be lawful so long as they complied with IHL. However, absent these situations, from a legal perspective, the actions of the TDA and other transnational criminal organizations should be a matter of law enforcement. As such, lethal force is reserved only for when, as per the ICRC, it is “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”
mself in International Criminal Court (ICC) custody subject to an arrest warrant for crimes against huma

 

Yawn.  At least you are starting to understand those are stateless vessels.

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:19 pm

 

---------------------------------

However, absent these situations, from a legal perspective, the actions of the TDA and other transnational criminal organizations should be a matter of law enforcement. As such, lethal force is reserved only for when, as per the ICRC, it is “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:20 pm

Yawn.  At least you are starting to understand those are stateless vessels.

it  does not matter

-----------------------
However, absent these situations, from a legal perspective, the actions of the TDA and other transnational criminal organizations should be a matter of law enforcement. As such, lethal force is reserved only for when, as per the ICRC, it is “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:22 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:17 pm

You still haven't checked the link.

=========================

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... oat-legal/

. For now, any legal accountability for the boat strike would most likely involve processes under domestic law—whether under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or in civilian courts. The domestic courts of the victims may also have jurisdiction.As Nevitt noted, this “preemptive lethal strike against an alleged drug boat continues the White House’s effort to blur the lines between law enforcement and the U.S. military’s missions and authorities.” Going forward, certain situations—imminent threat of attack against the United States, UN Security Council authorization, or the consent of the state where US strikes would occur—could mean that US military force outside US territory would be lawful. In the context of an international armed conflict, military operations would be lawful so long as they complied with IHL. However, absent these situations, from a legal perspective, the actions of the TDA and other transnational criminal organizations should be a matter of law enforcement. As such, lethal force is reserved only for when, as per the ICRC, it is “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”
mself in International Criminal Court (ICC) custody subject to an arrest warrant for crimes against huma
 

 

Anwar al-Awlaki

Look up that name.

Get back to me.

 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:22 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:19 pm

 

---------------------------------

However, absent these situations, from a legal perspective, the actions of the TDA and other transnational criminal organizations should be a matter of law enforcement. As such, lethal force is reserved only for when, as per the ICRC, it is “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

 

They have been deemed terrorist so they can drone them just like Obama did.

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:20 pm

Yawn.  At least you are starting to understand those are stateless vessels.

According to recent media reports, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth verbally ordered special forces to “kill everybody” ahead of a Sept. 2 operation targeting alleged drug traffickers in international waters. That order allegedly resulted in a follow-on “double tap” strike that killed two survivors who were clinging to wreckage.I agree with Professor Jack Goldsmith that if the media reporting is accurate, this military operation is a “dishonorable strike” that is illegal under international law and the laws of war.  This sentiment and logic was echoed by former U.S. military lawyers. The illegal order also runs contrary to longstanding U.S. military doctrine and U.S. Navy Regulations governing the treatment of survivors at sea. (See, also, this analysis by Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman.)But beyond the troubling legal issues associated with the strike, killing unarmed and vulnerable survivors is stunningly shortsighted. Killing survivors of a military strike is not just patently illegal and morally reprehensible; it is strategically reckless.The United States, which has military forces deployed around the globe, cannot build a safer world for its own servicemembers by discarding basic laws of war. History shows that when America blatantly abandons humane norms and the law of war, it ultimately endangers its own people.Compliance with international law—including the laws of war—is built, in many respects, on reciprocity. If the United States abandons these rules, it cannot expect its adversaries to follow them when Americans are the ones captured, isolated, shipwrecked, or shot down. And it’s not just reciprocity. Weakening the legitimacy of such fundamental rules also corrodes the underlying foundation of a system that serves U.S. servicemembers time and again. As the world’s most widely deployed maritime power, the United States relies on these protections more than any other nation. And what’s more, illegal orders create moral, reputational, and strategic harm long after the violations of law have ceased.Here’s how. 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:29 pm

They have been deemed terrorist so they can drone them just like Obama did.

International law, including the laws of war, exists to protect our people—not just “theirs” The duty to rescue or protect shipwrecked or wounded survivors at sea is among the oldest and most widely respected requirements in international law. Nearly every maritime nation abides by it, and not just because abiding by the rule of law is the honorable path. There’s also a strong incentive to ensure this particular rule is respected because anyone can become a shipwreck survivor—including U.S. Sailors, Marines, special operators, and Coast Guard crews.This duty is reflected in both the laws of war, which apply during armed conflict, and in international human rights law and law of the sea requirements (it remains a highly contestable proposition that the United States is at war with narco-terrorists). Regardless of whether or not this is an armed conflict, killing survivors violates longstanding requirements that protect U.S. servicemembers.The United States helped enshrine this principle during WWII.Compliance with international law—including the laws of war—is built, in many respects, on reciprocity.In the Pacific theater in World War II, certain Japanese naval units adopted “no survivors” policies, killing Allied sailors adrift at sea. The U.S. Navy explicitly rejected this approach. The U.S. State Department protested “this inhuman form of warfare practiced by Japanese forces in brutally attacking helpless survivors of a torpedoed vessel … which are contrary to all standards of civilized conduct.” In contrast, American rescuing practices not only upheld the rule of law but also strengthened U.S. claims to humane treatment for American POWs. Leading by example, American practices became part of the foundation of the postwar law of the sea.In

jerrab » 09 Dec 2025, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:33 pm

International law, including the laws of war, exists to protect our people—not just “theirs” The duty to rescue or protect shipwrecked or wounded survivors at sea is among the oldest and most widely respected requirements in international law. Nearly every maritime nation abides by it, and not just because abiding by the rule of law is the honorable path. There’s also a strong incentive to ensure this particular rule is respected because anyone can become a shipwreck survivor—including U.S. Sailors, Marines, special operators, and Coast Guard crews.This duty is reflected in both the laws of war, which apply during armed conflict, and in international human rights law and law of the sea requirements (it remains a highly contestable proposition that the United States is at war with narco-terrorists). Regardless of whether or not this is an armed conflict, killing survivors violates longstanding requirements that protect U.S. servicemembers.The United States helped enshrine this principle during WWII.Compliance with international law—including the laws of war—is built, in many respects, on reciprocity.In the Pacific theater in World War II, certain Japanese naval units adopted “no survivors” policies, killing Allied sailors adrift at sea. The U.S. Navy explicitly rejected this approach. The U.S. State Department protested “this inhuman form of warfare practiced by Japanese forces in brutally attacking helpless survivors of a torpedoed vessel … which are contrary to all standards of civilized conduct.” In contrast, American rescuing practices not only upheld the rule of law but also strengthened U.S. claims to humane treatment for American POWs. Leading by example, American practices became part of the foundation of the postwar law of the sea.In

When are you going to tell me what countries flag those terrorists sail under AND post the evidence that Hegseth gave the order for the second strike?  And that the terrorists were not trying to contact a second ship in the area and complete the job?  I give a **** about that **** as much as you gave a **** that Obama was droning terrorist and US Citizens.

Which I supported, by the way.

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:29 pm

They have been deemed terrorist so they can drone them just like Obama did.the Atlantic theater, the actions of German U-boat 852 provides an even clearer example. After sinking the SS Peleus, a Greek vessel under charter for the British military, the U-boat crew fired on shipwrecked survivors. Five German sailors were prosecuted for war crimes by the United Kingdom in a military court in Hamburg. The German commander claimed “operational necessity,” while others argued they were following orders. The court quickly rejected both defenses, after deliberating for just 40 minutes. Three were sentenced to death; two received lengthy prison terms. The message was unmistakable: killing survivors is a war crime, and “following orders” is no excuse.

/////////////Violating this longstanding principle is not a one-off tactical decision; it fundamentally reshapes global expectations of U.S. conduct. If America signals that it may kill survivors, adversaries will feel free to do the same when the situation is reversed. That puts a wide range of U.S. personnel at risk, and not just those who may be shipwrecked—it threatens pilots who eject over hostile territory, soldiers separated from their units, and special operators isolated behind enemy lines.It also erodes the related requirement to provide assistance to vessels or people in distress—a requirement the United States relies on in the Pacific, in the Middle East, in the Arctic, and elsewhere when operating outside of armed conflict. Humane treatment of shipwrecked survivors is not charity; it is a shield protecting American servicemembers and American mariners in need.That’s why, when Iranian forces detained American Sailors aboard two Navy vessels in January 2016, the United States could credibly and immediately demand humane treatment. During this incident, one of the Navy vessels suffered a mechanical issue while in Iranian waters. 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:36 pm

When are you going to tell me what countries flag those terrorists sail under AND post the evidence that Hegseth gave the order for the second strike?  And that the terrorists were not trying to contact a second ship in the area and complete the job?  I give a **** about that **** as much as you gave a **** that Obama was droning terrorist and US Citizens.

Which I supported, by the way.

------------------------

Our report noted that Iran had a duty to assist and aid the American sailors conducting innocent passage, consistent with Article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.Violating the law undermines the United States’s moral legitimacy and carries real strategic costsViolating international law also undermines the moral legitimacy underpinning current and future U.S. military operations. Moral legitimacy is a strategic asset, not a “nice extra.”When the United States abides by the laws of war, it strengthens its ability to shape global expectations, sustain coalitions, and demand humane treatment for its own forces.But if the United States authorizes the killing of defenseless survivors, it sends a clear message to the world: the United States does not take maritime law, fundamental human rights, or the law of armed conflict seriously. Why then should adversaries—or even partners—respect these rules?Forfeiting the moral high ground also makes it harder to maintain cohesion with allies. The U.S. experience with torture after 9/11 offers a stark warning: America’s willingness to violate humanitarian norms still haunts its global reputation and weakens its ability to demand humane treatment for its own servicemembers.Violating the law corrodes internal discipline and harms U.S. servicemembers from withinFor many American servicemembers, the military’s honor code and commitment to the rule of law are central to why they serve. We are supposed to be the “good guys.” Indeed, the U.S. Navy’s core values are honor, courage, and commitment. When the state abandons those values, it can demoralize troops, create long-lasting moral injury, and fuel distrust within the ranks.The continual psychological and institutional damage of post-9/11 abuses is well documented. Illegal orders create moral injury, erode discipline, and breed cynicism. They degrade the professional code, weaken force discipline, and make future misconduct more likely. A military that is asked to carry out illegal or dishonorable actions suffers long after the moment has passed. ===////////------------------------------------

obviously you want american soldiers and americans to be killed.