I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the sinking of that Iranian destroyer. yeah, there are other more serious atrocities, but sinking a defenseless vessel on the high seas without declaring war and without giving it a chance to surrender is not just wrong and not just a war crime. it's cowardly, dishonorable, and goes against **centuries** of naval tradition and culture. it's exceptionally dark and twisted.
I think the Democrats need to make it clear that when they take power, they are going to hold generals and admirals personally accountable for what their troops have done. like, some very powerful guys need to be stripped of their ranks, court martialed, and imprisoned.
my fear is that the Democrats are not promising to do that because they don't intend to do that.
> hold generals and admirals personally accountable
What is the appropriate action to take for a general who gets an order like "sink that ship now" from the commander in chief? What exactly is the right thing to do, and are there examples of people who did the right thing in that situation?
I suppose the general should say "sinking that ship in the way this order says would be a war crime, so I'm not going to do it." If a general says that, then what happens next?
@eliasr one of the admirals in the Caribbean resigned. personally, I would rather go to jail than massacre innocent people, that's an easy choice. and refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct.
> refusing an illegal order is a requirement under the uniform code of conduct
Interesting. Does that apply on all levels, not only for generals and admirals but all ranks all the way down to the private soldiers?
@eliasr I am not an expert. here's one source, from people who work on this issue. https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/faq-on-refusing-illegal-orders/
obviously under the Trump administration, you would probably still be punished and it would be devastating for your career and personal life.
@peter thanks!
I'm thinking that on one hand it would make total sense for all US military personnel to quit their jobs at this point, because they don't want to participate in war crimes and the current commander in chief (trump) is clealy insane and has no problem commiting war crimes. But on the other hand, that's easy for me to say, it's something else for someone who depends on their job in the US military to provide for their family. It's a really shitty situation for them.
> they can't 'just quit.' that would be desertion
I don't understand. Anyone who is employed within US armed forces must stay at that same job their whole life, they can never quit? About desertion, I thought that desertion was something that can be referred to in wartime, and that congress has not declared war. Obviously I'm ignorant about these things, I do appreciate if someone can explain it.
@eliasr @saltywizard @peter when you join the military, you sign a contract for a specified number of years. Part of that contract is swearing an oath to abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ has definitions and outlines punishments for a broad array of crimes, including being absent without leave (AWOL), desertion, and treason. AWOL is relatively benign - there can be significant punishments, but you could be AWOL if you thought you were on leave but didn't submit the papers.
@eliasr @saltywizard @peter Desertion would be abandonment of your post with intent, and can be punishable by death if it's during wartime (which apparently we're not at war, so I guess just 5 years in prison). Treason could be used if the absence was specifically done with the intent of aiding the country's enemies, although I don't think it's ever been successfully tried in this manner.
@eliasr @saltywizard @peter TLDR: you can't just quit the military without risking jail time or worse.
@eliasr @peter
they can't 'just quit.' that would be desertion. they would all go to jail.