this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
99 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19340 readers
2323 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Concerns have emerged over Trump's defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, who has criticized the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules of engagement as overly restrictive.

Critics, including retired military officers, argue his rhetoric could undermine the military's commitment to lawful conduct and accountability.

Hegseth has supported pardons for service members convicted of war crimes and questioned the application of international laws to extremist adversaries.

While Hegseth claims he does not condone war crimes, experts worry his stance could confuse troops and erode core military principles.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago

I mean, yeah. But so has every other defense secretary ever, so...

[–] uberdroog 4 points 16 hours ago

He will. Period.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

As opposed to every other US government in the history of US governments? Dont get me wrong it can always be worse, but still, odd headline. They literally have laws to make sure that nobody can touch their war criminals even if caught red handed.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 14 hours ago

They mean we won't even abide by our own laws anymore. While our political elite love to yeet the military all over the world, the rank and file has been largely subject to international laws of war while overseas.

Now they want the rank and file to have as much impunity as our political elite.

[–] PP_BOY_ 17 points 1 day ago

The US has it codified into law to invade The Hague if any US soldier is indicted by the UN.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago

What fucking scum is only concerned now? The US has been war criming with impunity my whole life and long before it.

Your official policy is to invade the fucking UN if a solder gets charged with a war crime. Who fucking cares if he pardons someone.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

US Military: .... ? .... we commit war crimes?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd pretty much guarantee that "willing to turn a blind eye to U.S. war crimes" was a prerequisite as far as Trump and his handlers were concerned.

[–] FuglyDuck 8 points 1 day ago

pretty sure the prerequisite was "willing to order warcrimes on US citizens."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

As opposed to all other leaders of the second most moral army in the world? Fuck off with that shit.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Could? Turn a blind eye? He's being hired specifically to ENCOURAGE US, Israeli, Saudi, and Russian war crimes.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Some military officers worry that Pete Hegseth could turn a blind eye to U.S. war crimes

Of course he will! All of these appointees are hand-picked to dismantle the thing they're put in charge of.

[–] SarcasticMan 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US response to Israel's actions in Gaza and the rest of the region should be a straightforward example of what the "Defender of Democracy" is okay with. I imagine war crimes will just be the tip of the spear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, if anyone still believed that 'international law' and 'rules based world order' were real, the war in Gaza should prove that those laws only existed to enforce colonialism, and weren't ever meant to apply to the US or its allies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, thats a real concern.

After all, the trials over the Bush administration legalizing Torture went on for so long and went a long way to helping the rest of the world trust the US.

[–] ATDA 2 points 1 day ago

He's a fucking drunkard that'll do nothing about anything.

[–] Bieren 2 points 1 day ago

He’s going to be too busy working under the resolute desk to notice anything.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I feel like he probably listed that as a proposed stance when he submitted his CV. For the circles he’s going to be working with: that’s a feature, not a bug.