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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 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]
    link
    fedilink
    26
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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
      link
      13 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.

    • Porto881
      link
      English
      171 day ago

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

  • NoneOfUrBusiness
    link
    fedilink
    91 day ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    121 day ago

    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
      link
      English
      81 day ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    1 day ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 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
    link
    41 day ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      21 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.

  • 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
    link
    21 day ago

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

  • @Bieren
    link
    21 day ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    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.