They weren't ordered to bomb a wedding, they either thought it was something else or they missed another target. They just don't give a shit that they bombed a wedding.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Source?

Cuz here's one of many they did after 9/11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre

You see, if a single guest is on their kill lists that means anyone near them is a "valid military target by association" and "acceptable collateral damage"

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 0 points 20 hours ago

Because its a hypothetical where the journalist didnt specify "unlawful order". Its a bs gocha question. There are hypothetical situations where it would be lawful, regardless of how likely.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's technically not illegal to invade another country unprovoked. It's illegal to do war crimes though. You can invade a country and annex it without committing warcrimes.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No it is literally illegal to invade another country unprovoked, the crime is called "war of aggression". It is one of the foundational pillars of international law. The Nuremberg judgement called aggressive war the "supreme international crime". This is the reason US shuns and delegitimizes the ICC and the ICJ, the two bodies supposedly enforcing international law.

It is also separately illegal to annex another country even by mere threat of force, even if no actual force was used.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I guess if your shit hole country doesn't adhere to international law.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

War isn't actually illegal. I know it feels like it should be, but it really isn't. People say a war is "illegal" because I suppose they feel like it carries more weight than to just say it's "immoral". I guess it's somehow comforting to people to think that somehow some lawyers could prevent countries from going to war somehow.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

He very clearly said that such an order from the POTUS would be illegal, and that no one in the chain of command would consider it as a legal order. The POTUS can not giver a legal order to attack a country that the US has a peace agreement with, and both countries are covered by the NATO agreement.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But there are illegal wars. Iran right now is illegal it wasn't approved by Congress. Trump is basically using legal bullfuckery and a lack of consequences to do that shit.

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Congress allows the executive branch to do so, this war is not an abuse of the legal system it's being used as intended

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago

Yes any order from the POTUS to attack a country that America has a peace accord with is not a legal order.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 1 day ago

It isn't, but Congress is pretending it is which is the same thing.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Lawful /= you agree with it, basically.

To see why this is definitely within the powers the president has, swap "Canada" for "Vietnam", "Iraq" or "Iran". For more detail, you'd have to refer to the actual laws of war the US government recognises.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

Canada and America are bound bu the NATO agreement. Under American law that makes any order to attack Canada not a legal order. Any military officer who abides by that order commits an offense under American law. That is why it is 'preposterous'. That was a factually correct term, not his opinion.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds like it's high time America was dissolved and balkanized, then.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There isn't any nation where the military can just disagree. Even under a military junta, it's only the junta itself that gets a say; everyone lower down must follow orders (even the ones involving atrocities, in that case. The West is weird for exempting something).

That said, yeah, America isn't looking so good these days.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

In America it is illegal for a member of the military to obey a command that is not legal. If they do obey, or even issue a command that is not legal, they can be prosecuted and if found guilty imprisoned.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It never did. It was founded on genocide and slavery.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Yes, .ml person. I'm sure you believe that. And also that North Korea is better, somehow. 'Nuff said.

Edit: Clearly, the username is ironic, with this much effort to get into a fight.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

If you don't believe that both the US and Canada were founded on unspeakable genocide (which inspired the holocaust BTW) and slavery you are delusional. North Korea (for all its faults) was founded by those who resisted and fought the genocidal oppressors. Read a damn book.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I believe in history, lol? Why are you bringing up North Korea?

Is your brain okay?

Edit: clearly this person wasn't interested in a conversation at all, based on my instance, lol?