B (11:24)
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. It should also be noted that wounded, sick or shipwrecked persons and members of crews of the Merchant Marine and are considered protected persons under articles 12 and 13 respectively of the second Geneva Convention. In essence, the Geneva Convention and other long standing international Maritime laws prohibits U.S. forces from doing anything to survivors of a military attack that destroys the vessel or aircraft carrying them other than rescuing them. They certainly prohibit US Forces from killing them when violations of IHL rising to the level of war crimes could be prosecuted by an International Tribunal. Domestic U.S. law 18 U.S.C. section 2441 War Crimes subjects U.S. citizens to criminal prosecutions for war crimes. U.S. courts have jurisdictions over such offenses, regardless of whether they are committed. If the offender is a US national or a member of the US Armed Forces and the crime constitutes, inter alia, a grave breach of Common Article 3. 1907 Hague Convention Even before the Geneva Convention of 1949, the laws were clearly prohibited Orders that no Quarter Be Given The Hague Convention Section 4 regulations Article 23 sub D states specifically that quote, it is especially forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. Orders to give quote, no quarter or to kill everyone, including survivors, wounded, ill or anyone else who is no longer able to carry out their military mission are not only unlawful orders, they subject those who give and execute such orders to prosecution as war criminals. The United States became a party to this treaty on 27 November 1909. Its prohibition against no quarter orders has also become a principle of customary international law. Therefore, violations of this treaty and customary law are also violations of US Law pending ihl. Additional Protocol to the Art. Of the Geneva Convention in 1977, the parties to the Geneva Convention, including the United States, drafted a new protocol to address the challenges of non international armed conflicts to which no treaty based IHL, with the exception of CA3 applies. Since to that point about 80% of all armed conflicts were of a non international nature, the parties drafted this Protocol to fill in that legal void. The protocol AP2 simply extends the principles enshrined in the original 4 Geneva Convention to conflicts of a non international nature. One relevant provision in AP2 is Article 7, which states all wounded and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected. This makes the second strike with survivors in the water particularly heinous. We characterize AP2 as quote pending because although the United States signed the treaty on 12 December 1977. The Senate has not yet provided its, quote, advice and consent, despite having received it for the purpose from President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Perhaps now is the time to remedy that. Notwithstanding the fact that AP2 has not yet achieved status in US law, the United States has for many years adhered to the principle that, quote, U.S. military practice is already consistent with additional protocols, its provisions subject to certain proposed reservations, understanding and declarations. Furthermore, the United States has stated that, quote, as a matter of policy, it routinely imposes heightened standards and its forces and that are more protective of civilians than required under international humanitarian laws. We believe that under all these circumstances, particularly the gross violations of international law reported yesterday, the Senate must immediately take up the matter of AP2 advice and consent. Applicable US law giving and executing no quarter order subjects individuals to either US criminal statutes or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 18 USC Section 1111 Murder Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Civilian personnel who issue and execute orders to kill any human being can be prosecuted for murder unless the defense applies. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals establishes as a matter of customary international law that these superior orders are no defense to war crimes. In other words, everybody in the chain of Command is responsible. 18 USC Section 2441 War Crimes See discussion of Common Article 3 above. UC MJ Article 118 Murder Substantively Similar to the federal murder statute applicable to civilians, UCM J. Article 118 provides that anyone who unlawfully kills a human being is guilty of murder. A great deal has been written lately about the notion that superior orders may provide a defense to certain military offenses. Military law does provide a superior orders defense, and it is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful. That's Rules of Court Martial Section 916D. Another part of the manual for Courts martial puts it in a slightly different but equally compelling way. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. The inference does not apply to patently illegal orders, such as ones that direct the commission of a crime. Again, the bottom line is that since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are patently illegal, anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both. Now I want to be clear, the people who make up this working group that was formed in February 2025 are some of the top former military lawyers. People like retired Major general Steven Leper, who served as the deputy judge advocate General for the US Air Force Patrick McLean, a retired Marine Corps judge and former federal prosecutor who's commented publicly on the group's position Rob Butch Bracknell, a former Marine and military lawyer who has also provided expert commentary Todd Huntley, a retired Navy captain and judge advocate general and director of Georgetown's National Security Law Program. That's where I went to law school, by the way. Should also be noted that Ann Bauer and others who are digging up Pete Hegseth prior writings say the following this is what Pete Hegseth wrote in his 2024 book. The subject was should we follow the Geneva Conventions? Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? Hegseth writes. What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey Al Qaeda, if you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them two hogs. Makes me wonder in 2024 if you want to win, how could anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict, especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance? Maybe instead we are just fighting with one hand behind our back and the enemy knows it. No, Mr. Hegseth. No Mr. Hegseth, we are fighting the way civilized societies were supposed to fight by complying our conduct with the Geneva Convention. America is not supposed to behave with the barbarism that you impute on others. America is supposed to show an example of how the world should behave because without law and order, all is lost. And as we see right here, all is lost under the Trump regime. That letter I just showed you, that statement I just read for you again, written by the former top military lawyers who put out that statement saying that the conduct by Hegseth and everybody in the chain of command constitutes war crimes. Tell me what you think in the comments below. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch.
