Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?
- By RDKirk
- American Politics
- 147 Replies
The only person claiming that is Tom Cotton. Everyone else who has seen the video (and doesn't have his own okole to cover) says differently.But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.
This is the problem facing the military people involved at the time: The LOAC required them to have rescue facilities, a plan of some kind, available to pick up survivors. Even if they had not killed the survivors, the fact that they carried out an attack without a means to rescue survivors is already a violation of the LOAC. Leaving them eventually to drown would already be a violation of the LOAC.
Essentially, their very plan of attack had already put them in violation of the LOAC...they planned to commit a crime. Everything after that was covering their own okoles.
Upvote
0