I totally stand behind Adm Bradley. He acted on his own, you know, like a hero.
Admiral Bradley is a hero. Love the guy. Stand behind him completely. But direct questions to him because he committed the war crime not me. It was his call. I would be happy to have him marry my daughter (unless he’s in prison for the war crimes he was 100% responsible for). You in the fake news media are disrespecting a true hero.
Link: https://x.com/petehegseth/status/1995643490152128919?s=46&t=kVeQeQf8ed0KokuRgfOE0g
Replies to: I totally stand behind Adm Bradley. He acted on his own, you know, like a hero.
Any doubt that Hegseth is drinking again?
(no message)
Would you prosecute him for war crimes? If not, why not?
(no message)
Yep. Hegseth first, then the admiral, for executing an illegal order.
(no message)
Defense Department Law of War Manual 18.3.2.1 —
“Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
Geez Ned, the one example of a “clearly illegal order” are shipwrecked survivors.
Edit: Typo re “manual”
Geez, conor. I wasn't asking about the law; I was asking if Chris/Dems would prosecute the military.
Since you brought up the law, I will just say that there are many examples of far more deadly engagements not being treated as war crimes, both on land and at sea (even with sailors in the sea after a ship is fired upon until sunk). But, if Chris mentions something first, no one is allowed to bring up counter-examples from history, lest they be accused of "whataboutism." (Apparently, Chris thinks the order in which arguments are made is very important. I assume he teaches this in class, "Remember, you cannot rebut with examples! If you want to make a point, you have to speak first, not second. The person who speaks first always wins, because rebuttals will only be ridiculed as whataboutism.") Also, since I don't really care about convincing you, I'll just let it go for now. Maybe Chris will give me permission to speak in rebuttal, but I think he hates being challenged with facts.
Wouldn’t the law be the starting point? Then apply the facts.
Oh wait, I forgot.
You support Trump, which means the rule of law never applies.
But since this was not a war, then it’s murder. Time for Trump to issue more pardons.
(no message)
We haven't had a war since 1945. Do you think the law of war might apply in non-war conflicts?
(no message)
Don’t be daft.
Are you drunk?
(no message)