UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

1) Any previous Secretary of Defense would take full responsibility rather than try to deflect his own role.

2) Rules of Engagement and commitment to spare the lives of “enemies” or “suspects” who no longer pose a threat to US personnel are longstanding rules and tenets that are meant to protect US soldiers, sailors, and pilots who might be captured or left defenseless.

That is, we want our personnel to be afforded the same protections we afford to the enemy. Rules of engagement and the code of conduct in warfare are never to be ignored or treated in a cavalier manner.

Japanese sailors after the Battle of Midway, was the recipient of torpedoes launched by the USS Nautilus under the orders of Admiral Raymond A. Spruance. IJN Kaga was eventually scuttled by the Japanese.

...here's an AI overview of how they were treated...it appears there was no "Kill Them All" order from Senior Command.
------------------------
AI Overview

Yes, some Japanese sailors from the sunken carriers at Midway were rescued by smaller Allied ships, particularly those from the carrier Hiryū, with about 35 engineering crew picked up by the U.S. seaplane tender USS Ballard weeks later, while others were saved by destroyers or submarines after ditching aircraft, though many went down with their ships, as officers often chose to stay with their vessels.

Details of Rescues

Hiryū Survivors: A significant group of 35 sailors from Hiryū were rescued from a lifeboat by the USS Ballard nearly two weeks after the battle, after being spotted by an American search plane.

Aircraft Ditchings: Many Japanese pilots whose planes were damaged or out of fuel ditched near friendly destroyers, which performed plane guard duties, and were rescued by these smaller vessels.

Mikuma Survivors: Two enlisted men from the cruiser Mikuma, which sank after the battle, were rescued by the submarine USS Trout.

Reasons for Mixed Outcomes

Japanese Doctrine: While some officers chose to go down with their ships (like Hiryū's Vice Admiral Yamaguchi), many enlisted men and pilots were saved by their own support ships or rescued by the Allies.

U.S. Standard Practice: The U.S. Navy conducted "Lifeguard Operations," and submarines and tenders would often rescue downed aircrews and sailors, a common wartime practice.

Key Takeaway: While thousands perished, rescues did occur, both by Japanese support ships before sinking and by American forces from the sea, often involving smaller vessels like destroyers and tenders.
------------------

This was not the only time an order was given to kill Japanese sailors who had survived the sinking of their ship, USS Wahoo comes to mind.

Although you mentioned IJN Kaga being a key asset, you didn't mention why. Hint - hint.

the "Wahoo" did not take part in that encounter.

Back to Trump/Hegseth/Bradley "Double Tap" strike(s)...let's see what a public investigation reveals...but it's clear that such behavior is definitely counter to established "Rules of Engagement" for the U.S. Military...with severe consequences, as Lt. Calley can attest.

(no message)

Apart from that irresistible waddabout, I don't think we should be doing these strikes. There are enough naval assets in that area to intercept and capture these boats. We shouldn't be blowing anyone up just because we can, or because it is not convenient to have them be captured.

Link: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/new-study-asserts-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-target-rescuers-funerals/

The target was Al Queda and terrorist groups in the wake of 9/11.

There were civilians killed, perhaps 10% of all casualties. To your point that the Obama drone strikes were not as discriminating as they should have been, I recognize the point.

No prior administration has used the “drug war” as a license to kill alleged drug runners.

The goal was to kill first responders.

...that from your linked article. How is "..between 282 and 535..." credible? Note that virtually all drone strikes were in the rugged, sparsely populated Pakistani mountains bordering Afghanistan, where virtually no one who isn't an Al Qaeda supporter is allowed to go.

Trump's admin is the Keystone Cops version of what Bush, Clinton, Obama and Biden have conducted.

that needed to be met prior to drone strikes, especially those involving our Military...(CIA strikes, due to their long-term and richer intelligence, were less encumbered).

Here is an excerpt from a interview with an investigative reporter who dealt with this issue...there are other segments of equal value, so your time is well spent reading the whole interview...

-----------------------
KLAIDMAN: Yeah, that's exactly right. This was three days after Barack Obama took office, only hours before he had signed these executive orders that rolled back some of the - what he viewed as the excesses of the previous administration's counterterrorism policies, Guantanamo, torture, shutting down the CIA detention facilities. And then, on January 23, John Brennan, his chief counterterrorism advisor, came to him and had to give him the news that the very first drone strike of his presidency had gone very badly wrong and a Pakistani tribal elder and much of his family, a pro-peace person, had been wiped out in this drone strike.

And the president was quite troubled by it. He called in the holdover CIA chief, Michael Hayden and his deputy, and he asked him what had happened here. And this was a kind of an important moment for him. Ironically, he ended up embracing the program, and it's also kind of an inflection point in his presidency.

CONAN: And we learn in your article that there are different types of strikes defined by the quality, I guess, of the intelligence that's involved in deciding what's a target and what isn't.

KLAIDMAN: That's exactly right. And this is what the president was learning in that meeting with Michael Hayden. He was learning the difference between a signature strike and a personality strike. And this particular strike was a signature strike in which they know that the people that they're going after have certain signatures or characteristics associated with terrorism, but they don't know exactly who they are. And Steve Kappes, who is the deputy CIA director, said to the president, we know there are a lot of men down there, military-age men, who could be associated with terrorism. We don't know their identities exactly.

The president cut him off and said, well, that's just not good enough for me. But over time, he was persuaded that this was a policy that, in the end, was rather effective, and not only did he accept it, but he ramped up those strikes in Pakistan.

CONAN: And it was a policy, I guess, he once described as kill'em now and sort'em out later.

KLAIDMAN: Well, he was always uncomfortable with it. According to some of his closest advisers, he would squirm. And, in fact, you know, the - his evolution on drones, it's not just a straight line. He would go back and forth and, you know, at times, he would say, I'm just not sure about this. I'm not sure if we're getting people who are genuinely - who are genuine threats to the United States. He was kind of a supple decision-maker when it came to these drone strikes.

There's one sort of instructive anecdote, which you can see him going back and forth. This is in late 2009, and he authorizes strikes against a certain number of members of al-Qaida in Yemen, but then says no to a couple of others. I think because it wasn't clear that they were demonstrable threats against the United States. But then in mid-operation, David Petraeus, who was then the general-in-charge of that area, had a clear - they had a clear shot at one of the individuals that the president had not approved. So John Brennan, the president's chief counterterrorism advisor, and Hoss Cartwright, then the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had a hurry-up meeting with the president and said, you know, there's an opportunity to go after this person.

Now, you did not approve of this strike, but General Petraeus would like to be able to do this. And the president says, well, is it clear that this is who it is? Do we have the legal authority to do it? And will we - can we ensure that we will not kill civilians, women and children? And the answers were all yes to those questions. And he said, again, this was in mid-execution, OK, we can do it. And so they did. But when these kinds of things happen, the president sometimes would then, in quiet conversations with Cartwright or Brennan, sometimes turn these issues again over in his mind and say, well, you know, God, did we really - was that really an appropriate strike?

How do we know that this particular individual was not involved in a local insurgency or a civil war? So he was wrestling with these issues all the way through. And yet, there is this kind of inexorable momentum toward more violence rather than less, and you can see that sort of trend through his presidency.
----------------------


Link: https://www.npr.org/2012/06/06/154443665/how-the-president-decides-to-make-drone-strikes

no one steps up to say why...much less offer a defense. Must be a reflexive response to being found Guilty...akin to exclaiming "OUCH...That Hurt!" ;-)

(no message)

(no message)

Down voting and putting people on ignore is a beta male move.

Grow a pair, cowards.

I don't apologize for it. They're the ones that have a compulsive issue that forces them the drag out threads and fill up the board such that other threads are on Page 2 before you know it.

There aren't many.

obviously matter to you. As an ND grad, I'd like to see this UHND Open Forum represented by as many Critical Thinking and engaged members as possible. Downvoters who offer no reasons or rationale for their 'opinion' are an embarrassment, and I'm doing what I can to try and correct that.

In this particular case, Pete Hegseth...our Sec'y of Defense...has shown a willingness to totally ignore established UCMJ Rules of Engagement that could result in harm to American lives in future engagements, and that is clearly a danger to our national security...hopefully, you can appreciate that consequence, and share your thoughts on his behavior and what should be done about it.

Let's hear what you have to say, ELP...

No one reads this long winded self serving word jumble that you try to force on everyone. Don't care if your a grad from the University of Mars. You don't want debate, you just want to lecture everyone. Typical Democrat, pointing the finger at everyone else for the downvotes but yourself.

your thoughts on Pete Hegseth ignoring established Military guidance for "Rules of Engagement"...here's what I posted (Cut & Pasted for you ;-))...,
--------------------
n this particular case, Pete Hegseth...our Sec'y of Defense...has shown a willingness to totally ignore established UCMJ Rules of Engagement that could result in harm to American lives in future engagements, and that is clearly a danger to our national security...hopefully, you can appreciate that consequence, and share your thoughts on his behavior and what should be done about it.

Let's hear what you have to say, ELP...
---------------------
So who's avoiding debate?...Certainly not me,...so it's up to you to "Walk the Talk" and engage on this very serious issue facing the country.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)