Thanks. I wish I knew of a way to put a stop to it. It's unfortunate that the military acquiesced to his orders instead of gathering him up and throwing him in the brig.
I keep wondering why they're acquiescing to unconstitutional orders, never mind illegal. Their path of office was to uphold and defend the constitution, was it not? Mind you, so was Trumplethinskin's, the cabinet's and SCOTUS's, but I'd have thought there'd be more honour, integrity and taking the oath seriously in the military. And they didn't exactly look enthusiastic when Kegbreath summoned them all last year.
Honestly, I suspect that these war plans have been in the war games library for some time under the administrations of both parties. It was too clean an operation to have been drawn up in a few weeks or even months.
The American military might not agree to actions on our soil, but there's no love lost for Maduro in American military circles, so probably very little resistance to an operation like this.
Thank you for your reply. I agree that these plans must've been drawn up long ago. I hadn't considered Maduro's unpopularity with the military, that makes sense. However, it doesn't explain the strikes on fishing boats, whether they were snuggling drugs or not. It seems clear to me that even if they were, their murders were illegal and the that boats weren't heading for the US anyway. The most obvious crime was the killing of the two survivors, clinging to the wreckage of their boat, some 20' after the initial strike. Killing survivors has been illegal since Nuremberg/the Geneva Convention: it was fairly common practice by the Nazis and a number of naval officers were found guilty on that basis (and sentenced to death, as far as I'm aware), even though it wasn't a war crime or international crime at the time. I'm guessing here, but it seems to me that the prosecutors thought that it was so obviously immoral and indefensible that it was self-evidently a repugnant and criminal act.
I'll do some research… Apologies for not having done so before I post this reply, but if I switch to Wikipedia, my browser &c, I invariably lose my place in SubStack. That's particularly annoying when I'm replying to notes as they're often impossible to find again.
Great point on the boat killings. There's so much going on that I honestly forget one crime shortly after another is committed. The boat killings are a big issue. Thanks for looking it all up and for the follow-up below.
I agree. It's tough for an unranked sailor to do much. But the admiral involved has been outspoken in his defense of the killings, which exposes him to the international law you're outlining.
Unfortunately, we are not currently signatories to the International Criminal Court, even though we helped formulate the Rome Statute underlying its structure. This would provide added prosecutorial powers over the admiral in question (I forget his name, but he testified in front of congress recently.)
Thank you 🙏🏼, it's kind of you to say so. The Geneva Conventions are under ‘universal jurisdiction’. That means that anyone who has violated them can be arrested and tried in any country. In fact it is considered to be a duty to do so for serious violations. So that admiral might want to think twice before setting foot outside the US. Sadly, I think it's doubtful that any country will have the courage to do so, but you never know. I'd like to believe that there will be a reckoning, at least for Trumplethinskin and the most egregiously complicit in his “Badges? We don't need no stinky badges”, answerable–to–no–one crimes. If nothing else, he's severely damaged the USA's rôle as defender of democracy and freedom. Sadly, as pointed out in detail elsewhere in these replies, the US has a long history of interfering in other countries's democratic governments, especially in left-wing South American ones. That's never turned out well and puts the USA's moral guardianship on a somewhat dubious footing.
Anyway, while I'll happily state my opinion, I try to be accurate when I'm making factual claims, so I usually look them up to make sure. The exceptions are when I'm certain of my knowledge. With the amount of mis/disinformation, whether intentional or not, I think it's important to be as accurate as possible. It doesn't even take very long: more often than not, a quick check of Wikipedia is sufficient¹. When it isn't (as was the case here) I use the AI feature of my browser (Opera; unlike many browsers that foist their AI on you, you have to specifically invoke it (Aria) in Opera. It's one of the reasons I prefer it. And I have to admit that I've found it extremely useful, especially for those more complex web searches, or when I've forgotten a name but can describe the context. Of course it's not infallible (out of 100s of queries, I've pointed out its errors on four or five occasions), but for factual information it always gives at least two sources, often four, so I think I know when to trust its answers, not that I'm infallible either. It actually gave nine references for my question: “Could you please tell me when it became illegal to kill survivors of a torpedoed boat? I believe that naval officers of Nazi Germany were convicted of this crime at Nuremberg even though it wasn't illegal at the time?” and five when I asked about the Geneva Conventions jurisdiction. It also took considerably longer to answer: it usually takes two or three seconds, but it took nearer 15" for that question!
¹ I'm convinced that Wikipedia's unjustified reputation for inaccuracy is a deliberate attempt to discredit it. After all, it's said that “knowledge is power” and I have no doubt that there are people who really object that anyone with an internet connexion has access to, virtually, the sum of all human knowledge (and isn't that itself astonishing? I think it alone compensates for all the downsides of the internet and makes it a worthwhile thing). Entries are scrupulously checked and falsehoods promptly removed. You'll often see a ‘citation needed’ comment where claims have insufficiently robust references. Also, a substantial number of inaccuracies are deliberate attempts at sabotage, either as a whole (to discredit its accuracy) or against an entry: the great majority of its inaccuracies are in the biographical entries of people still living, so may be part of a vendetta, grudge or prejudice against the person in question. On the STEM subjects in particular, history, geography or any other objective/factual subject it really is superb (for instance, my father is a retired mathematician and he's been really impressed with the entries covering his specialism). The fact that anyone can contribute is one of its great strengths (despite being seen as a weakness by some). It allows Wikipedia to draw on the expertise, experience and knowledge of virtually all of the world's experts, amateur or professional, on any subject. There are strict guidelines for entries, including no original research (i.e. that facts must be independently verifiable) and any claims must be referenced by reputable sources (so biographical entries can't be autobiographical; I've had to limit one of my contributions to the ‘talk’ (discussion) page because it was based on personal experience). So I'm curious why the one or two thousand contributers of reference works like the Encyclopaedia Britannica are considered more trustworthy than the far greater pool of knowledge of Wikipedia (we're fortunate enough to have inherited three or four complete editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, although the one my father has in his study is the 28 volume (plus one index volume) 11ᵗʰ edition from 1910–11. So it wouldn't have been much use for this question. Where in the index would you look up “When did it become illegal to kill survivors of a torpedoed boat?”: ‘shipwreck survivors’, ‘War crimes, list of’, ‘International law’, ‘enemy combatants, naval, disarmed/sunk, killing of, legality of’…? They're all a bit vague and there's unlikely to be as specific an entry like the last example. It's for those kinds of complex questions that I find AI truly useful (I think much of the rest is exaggerated hype). It can at least point me in the right direction where previously I would probably have given up after eight or so attempts.
As promised, I did a little research into this. Apparently, the killing of shipwrecked survivors was deemed a war crime under the Hague Conventions of 1907: it states that such survivors should be “treated humanely and protected from harm”. However, those treaties did not codify the crime, so its illegality was unclear. Most notable of the officers tried with this offence (among others) at Nuremberg was admiral Dönitz, in particular for the ‘Laconia Order’ of 1942 which forbade German U–boats from rescuing survivors, implying they were legitimate targets. There was some controversy over these prosecutions as they were ‘ex post facto’ (i.e. retroactive applied). The offence was formally codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
One further interesting fact it's that the Geneva Conventions apply omni–laterally, i.e. equally to non–signatories as to signatories. That would make the officers who gave the order guilty of crimes against humanity. I don't know how far down the chain of command that goes, but I would have thought all the way. Any one of the officers and the personnel who actually carried out the strike could have refused the order as being illegal. “I was just following orders” was explicitly not considered a valid defence at the Nuremberg trials. Personally, I think the greatest responsibility lies at the top of the chain and with the highest ranking officers. That's not to excuse the personnel who carried out the attack, but I think it takes a great deal more courage for an unranked sailor to refuse a command than an admiral or captain.
I read the first sentence and thought uh uh! Tell me this isn’t real. I’ve had enough trauma this morning. Not reading this unless I have verification.
So I scrolled down a bit more. And there it was. 🙃🙃
Thanks. I am usually coy with the satire, but this special circumstance seemed to demand a louder warning. I didn't want people getting to the fake post without seeing the satire notification first.
Other than the October 24 date on the bottom not in sync with the content on events in the True Sociopath post, that sure looks like the real thing. Which got be thinking (always a dangerous thing) - why not an AI Donald? The WH can have one of Elon’s 19 year olds send out hundreds of posts daily. The dude can sit at his screen and ask AI “what would Donald post about …..”. Click send. Meanwhile, Susie, Stephen, Pete, Marco, son-in-law Jarred, Russell, and occasionally JD can each run the country on their respective whims of the day. When the real Donald needs to be produced, they take away his toy phone, pump him full of chemicals, and point him in the right direction for a few hours. This is the movie “Dave” on steroids.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Right?
You got it in one. Yep.
Spot on!
This is so terribly wrong and distressing. Awful news to wake up to. But thanks for the info as always.
Thanks. I wish I knew of a way to put a stop to it. It's unfortunate that the military acquiesced to his orders instead of gathering him up and throwing him in the brig.
I keep wondering why they're acquiescing to unconstitutional orders, never mind illegal. Their path of office was to uphold and defend the constitution, was it not? Mind you, so was Trumplethinskin's, the cabinet's and SCOTUS's, but I'd have thought there'd be more honour, integrity and taking the oath seriously in the military. And they didn't exactly look enthusiastic when Kegbreath summoned them all last year.
Sorry, oath of office, not path 🙄.
Honestly, I suspect that these war plans have been in the war games library for some time under the administrations of both parties. It was too clean an operation to have been drawn up in a few weeks or even months.
The American military might not agree to actions on our soil, but there's no love lost for Maduro in American military circles, so probably very little resistance to an operation like this.
So I'm disgusted, but not shocked.
Thank you for your reply. I agree that these plans must've been drawn up long ago. I hadn't considered Maduro's unpopularity with the military, that makes sense. However, it doesn't explain the strikes on fishing boats, whether they were snuggling drugs or not. It seems clear to me that even if they were, their murders were illegal and the that boats weren't heading for the US anyway. The most obvious crime was the killing of the two survivors, clinging to the wreckage of their boat, some 20' after the initial strike. Killing survivors has been illegal since Nuremberg/the Geneva Convention: it was fairly common practice by the Nazis and a number of naval officers were found guilty on that basis (and sentenced to death, as far as I'm aware), even though it wasn't a war crime or international crime at the time. I'm guessing here, but it seems to me that the prosecutors thought that it was so obviously immoral and indefensible that it was self-evidently a repugnant and criminal act.
I'll do some research… Apologies for not having done so before I post this reply, but if I switch to Wikipedia, my browser &c, I invariably lose my place in SubStack. That's particularly annoying when I'm replying to notes as they're often impossible to find again.
Great point on the boat killings. There's so much going on that I honestly forget one crime shortly after another is committed. The boat killings are a big issue. Thanks for looking it all up and for the follow-up below.
I agree. It's tough for an unranked sailor to do much. But the admiral involved has been outspoken in his defense of the killings, which exposes him to the international law you're outlining.
Unfortunately, we are not currently signatories to the International Criminal Court, even though we helped formulate the Rome Statute underlying its structure. This would provide added prosecutorial powers over the admiral in question (I forget his name, but he testified in front of congress recently.)
Thank you 🙏🏼, it's kind of you to say so. The Geneva Conventions are under ‘universal jurisdiction’. That means that anyone who has violated them can be arrested and tried in any country. In fact it is considered to be a duty to do so for serious violations. So that admiral might want to think twice before setting foot outside the US. Sadly, I think it's doubtful that any country will have the courage to do so, but you never know. I'd like to believe that there will be a reckoning, at least for Trumplethinskin and the most egregiously complicit in his “Badges? We don't need no stinky badges”, answerable–to–no–one crimes. If nothing else, he's severely damaged the USA's rôle as defender of democracy and freedom. Sadly, as pointed out in detail elsewhere in these replies, the US has a long history of interfering in other countries's democratic governments, especially in left-wing South American ones. That's never turned out well and puts the USA's moral guardianship on a somewhat dubious footing.
Anyway, while I'll happily state my opinion, I try to be accurate when I'm making factual claims, so I usually look them up to make sure. The exceptions are when I'm certain of my knowledge. With the amount of mis/disinformation, whether intentional or not, I think it's important to be as accurate as possible. It doesn't even take very long: more often than not, a quick check of Wikipedia is sufficient¹. When it isn't (as was the case here) I use the AI feature of my browser (Opera; unlike many browsers that foist their AI on you, you have to specifically invoke it (Aria) in Opera. It's one of the reasons I prefer it. And I have to admit that I've found it extremely useful, especially for those more complex web searches, or when I've forgotten a name but can describe the context. Of course it's not infallible (out of 100s of queries, I've pointed out its errors on four or five occasions), but for factual information it always gives at least two sources, often four, so I think I know when to trust its answers, not that I'm infallible either. It actually gave nine references for my question: “Could you please tell me when it became illegal to kill survivors of a torpedoed boat? I believe that naval officers of Nazi Germany were convicted of this crime at Nuremberg even though it wasn't illegal at the time?” and five when I asked about the Geneva Conventions jurisdiction. It also took considerably longer to answer: it usually takes two or three seconds, but it took nearer 15" for that question!
¹ I'm convinced that Wikipedia's unjustified reputation for inaccuracy is a deliberate attempt to discredit it. After all, it's said that “knowledge is power” and I have no doubt that there are people who really object that anyone with an internet connexion has access to, virtually, the sum of all human knowledge (and isn't that itself astonishing? I think it alone compensates for all the downsides of the internet and makes it a worthwhile thing). Entries are scrupulously checked and falsehoods promptly removed. You'll often see a ‘citation needed’ comment where claims have insufficiently robust references. Also, a substantial number of inaccuracies are deliberate attempts at sabotage, either as a whole (to discredit its accuracy) or against an entry: the great majority of its inaccuracies are in the biographical entries of people still living, so may be part of a vendetta, grudge or prejudice against the person in question. On the STEM subjects in particular, history, geography or any other objective/factual subject it really is superb (for instance, my father is a retired mathematician and he's been really impressed with the entries covering his specialism). The fact that anyone can contribute is one of its great strengths (despite being seen as a weakness by some). It allows Wikipedia to draw on the expertise, experience and knowledge of virtually all of the world's experts, amateur or professional, on any subject. There are strict guidelines for entries, including no original research (i.e. that facts must be independently verifiable) and any claims must be referenced by reputable sources (so biographical entries can't be autobiographical; I've had to limit one of my contributions to the ‘talk’ (discussion) page because it was based on personal experience). So I'm curious why the one or two thousand contributers of reference works like the Encyclopaedia Britannica are considered more trustworthy than the far greater pool of knowledge of Wikipedia (we're fortunate enough to have inherited three or four complete editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, although the one my father has in his study is the 28 volume (plus one index volume) 11ᵗʰ edition from 1910–11. So it wouldn't have been much use for this question. Where in the index would you look up “When did it become illegal to kill survivors of a torpedoed boat?”: ‘shipwreck survivors’, ‘War crimes, list of’, ‘International law’, ‘enemy combatants, naval, disarmed/sunk, killing of, legality of’…? They're all a bit vague and there's unlikely to be as specific an entry like the last example. It's for those kinds of complex questions that I find AI truly useful (I think much of the rest is exaggerated hype). It can at least point me in the right direction where previously I would probably have given up after eight or so attempts.
As promised, I did a little research into this. Apparently, the killing of shipwrecked survivors was deemed a war crime under the Hague Conventions of 1907: it states that such survivors should be “treated humanely and protected from harm”. However, those treaties did not codify the crime, so its illegality was unclear. Most notable of the officers tried with this offence (among others) at Nuremberg was admiral Dönitz, in particular for the ‘Laconia Order’ of 1942 which forbade German U–boats from rescuing survivors, implying they were legitimate targets. There was some controversy over these prosecutions as they were ‘ex post facto’ (i.e. retroactive applied). The offence was formally codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
One further interesting fact it's that the Geneva Conventions apply omni–laterally, i.e. equally to non–signatories as to signatories. That would make the officers who gave the order guilty of crimes against humanity. I don't know how far down the chain of command that goes, but I would have thought all the way. Any one of the officers and the personnel who actually carried out the strike could have refused the order as being illegal. “I was just following orders” was explicitly not considered a valid defence at the Nuremberg trials. Personally, I think the greatest responsibility lies at the top of the chain and with the highest ranking officers. That's not to excuse the personnel who carried out the attack, but I think it takes a great deal more courage for an unranked sailor to refuse a command than an admiral or captain.
You really must stop predicting the future, Charles. 😏
My body agrees.
Awesome satire. Thank goodness you told us. 😳
I read the first sentence and thought uh uh! Tell me this isn’t real. I’ve had enough trauma this morning. Not reading this unless I have verification.
So I scrolled down a bit more. And there it was. 🙃🙃
Thanks. I am usually coy with the satire, but this special circumstance seemed to demand a louder warning. I didn't want people getting to the fake post without seeing the satire notification first.
👍
Other than the October 24 date on the bottom not in sync with the content on events in the True Sociopath post, that sure looks like the real thing. Which got be thinking (always a dangerous thing) - why not an AI Donald? The WH can have one of Elon’s 19 year olds send out hundreds of posts daily. The dude can sit at his screen and ask AI “what would Donald post about …..”. Click send. Meanwhile, Susie, Stephen, Pete, Marco, son-in-law Jarred, Russell, and occasionally JD can each run the country on their respective whims of the day. When the real Donald needs to be produced, they take away his toy phone, pump him full of chemicals, and point him in the right direction for a few hours. This is the movie “Dave” on steroids.
👍 The movie Dave was great! On steroids 😅
"October 24" ... busted! I missed that. I suspect your AI presidency would be much more efficient.