Thank you for this! Restacking because I believe many of us “normies” are getting educated beyond belief about many things, many laws and how to stand up for our decency as a country and in our need to protect and defend our US Constitution. And our rule of law way of life.
Of course, Israel, with the support of the US, is breaking all of these rules all the time in Gaza setting the precedent. There doesn't seem to be any true international oversight with teeth enough to stop it.
Surely you meant to write: "Hamas is breaking all of these rules in Gaza, with international public support from people who mistake the consequences for the crime".
No. We are commenting to an article about perfidy. Hamas was the one fighting in civilian clothing, firing rockets from schools, using hospitals as headquarters and transporting commanders in ambulances. These are war crimes.
The result is that those entities become valid, lawful military targets because they lose their civilian status. This and the consequential increased inhumanity is the fault of Hamas.
Hamas considers Palestinian civilian deaths as martyrs and uses them in their international propaganda against Israel. The worse it looks, the better for them.
War is terrible, and Hamas started this one in the most horrendous way possible.
What are the odds US military will arrest the 47 maladministration & deliver them in chains to The World court? 47 in Co. sre breaking states laws, national laws and international laws every day. What can, and what must we do?
First, no indictment of the President has been made for war crimes. Thus, there wouldn't be jurisdiction, at the moment, over the President or subordinates if you're trying to make some kind of argument that the ICC had jurisdiction.
Second, even if there were such an indictment, there are other treaties that prohibit the seizing of sovereigns for such crimes (this is the issue with the U.S. seizing Maduro, by the way, among other problems). Seizing Saddam Hussein after the fall, and then putting him up on trial, by the Iraqis, was legitimate. If we attempted to bring him to US District Federal Court or something, that would be legally suspect. If we attempted to bring him to an international tribunal, like the ICC, or some "Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal," that would probably also be problematic, but overcommable.
But the idea that the U.S. continues to function as a sovereign state, and that Trump winds up on trial at the Rome Court like he's Eichmann or something, is pure fantasy in my view.
Third, as for what "can we" and "must we" do, it's demand accountability on these issues from the President, his staff, and Congress. Ultimately, these violations of law are primary and first violations of U.S. law. It's a violation of U.S. law for our military to violate the Geneva Conventions (UCMJ). It's a violation of U.S. federal law for both civilians accompanying the force, and for military officers, to engage in perfidy. It's a violation of U.S. Federal law for officers to accept unlawful orders and execute them.
Unlawfulness isn't the problem here. There's plenty of criminal behavior and accountability by which to see it accounted. The problem here is a lack of will to do so.
This is a razor-sharp, darkly hilarious takedown — “Captain Perfidy” is the perfect moniker for the Dutch government’s current performance.
The way you lay out the contradiction is devastating: they posture as the moral high ground of Europe, lecture everyone on human rights and international law, then quietly enable (or actively support) the very actions they publicly condemn. The “Dutch courage” line is brutal and spot-on — lots of loud virtue-signaling, very little actual backbone when it counts.
The section on the arms exports, the quiet diplomatic shielding, and the selective outrage is particularly damning. It’s not ignorance; it’s calculated hypocrisy. They want the progressive halo without the political cost.
Your writing style here — biting, precise, and unafraid — makes the truth land harder. This is the kind of commentary that cuts through the sanitized mainstream narrative and forces people to confront the reality.
Thank you for not pulling punches. The world needs more voices willing to call out the moral theater for what it is.
Keep writing. Keep exposing. This kind of clarity is rare and necessary. ✊
I presume all of this becomes moot if a war is declared. I’m thinking of Allied armies sending disguised military personnel as spies or to support the French Resistance during WW2 as an example. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Spies do not have Geneva accorded rights. Spies are not, by definition, lawful combatants entitled to combatant immunity. That part of the "law" of war got clarified post-1945.
That said, espionage (spying), is typically a crime punishable under the domestic legal context, and not somehow an international law of war issue. And other treaties make clear that Nation-States are not supposed to interfere in the operation of domestic law. That's a main tenant of Nation-State sovereignty going all the way back to the Treaty of Westphalia.
That said, you're conflating "spies" from "resistors" both in the pre-1945 and post-1945 context. Civilians who are defending their homes and their domestic territory ARE to be accorded rights similar to lawful combatants, up until they're overwhelmed. So if you're like out there, with your shotgun, and you're shooting at the Germans as they advance on Antwerp or something, then you're protected as if you were an allied soldier (effectively). But once the Germans occupy, and now you're running around blowing shit up, the government imposed by the Germans is basically "the government" under the Geneva Conventions. You still have protection, but it's different than combatant immunity. This is the primary purpose of Fourth Geneva Convention.
If you're a "resistance" member, your protections vary. In the case of World War II, true "resistance" in France, Belgium, etc., those individuals actually identified themselves with armbands. In that regard, they become quasi-lawful-combatants. They're back in the box of "defending their homeland" as an irregular force. So they're entitled to some of the combatant immunities but not everything. For example, they't ypically can't be held individually liable, subject to a drumhead (summarily shot following a court-martial on the battlefield), subject to collective punishments, etc.
That said, again the issue gets complicated because of the likely state of occupation that exists by the "Detaining Power" in the country.
In general, however, none of this matters in the moment. It's not like a Nazi went, "ooops my bad, can't shoot you..." No. They totally shot everyone. Resistance members totally murdered both Nazi civilian and military targets.
At the moment, everyone is bent about "One of us | All of You," on Madame Himmler's podium a few days ago.
That phrase is an anglicization of the policy the SS imposed on Ludice after resistance members assaulted Heydrich (almost killing him. He'd die months later from infection.) The SS rounded up everyone, and had all the men in the town shot.
That was a violation, even at the time, of the collective punishments prohibition. It was also a violation, at the time, of protection under Geneva Four.
Didn't do doodly dick to stop the Nazis. That said, those individuals who conducted and ordered that murder were held accountable.
Plus, Heydrich fucking died in agony from infection. So there's that as a plus... even if the whole town had to give their lives. Heydrich was one evil mofo. :P
It most certainly doesn't become "moot" if war is declared. The rules of armed conflict exist to regulate armed conflict.
Now, if you're wondering how those rules are enforced, during the armed conflict it's "tit-for-tat" typically. After the armed conflict, the victors have the option of subjecting the vanquished to war crimes tribunals. That's what the real legacy of "Nuremberg" was... the idea that personal criminal liability exists for acts in war, and that the malfeasants of those acts can be held personally liable in a venue not connected to the domestic law of either belligerent.
In today's sphere, I'd argue that Court is likely the ICC. However, it need not be the only option. The beligerents who prevail could form an independent tribunal.
But if I understand correctly, the reason Allied soldiers who surreptitiously went to France to hep the resistance during the war were not prosecuted (nor were their superiors, I think) is because the Allies won the war.
Just to be clear, however, given what I just wrote (as I think more), what wouldn't be legal is to take regular forces, dress them up as civilians or resistance, and plop them into the combat zone, and be like "oh ha ha ha... surprise." I mean that's perfidy (although at the time I believe that practice would have been called "treachery.")
Military commandos don't dress up as civilians.
Spies will. But not military forces.
So, if we send military forces into a combat zone, even if they aren't engaged in "combat," the presumption is, they'll be identifiable as combat troops.
Otherwise, they're not to be accorded any protections as lawful combatants. Which typically means summary execution. :P
Well practically that's correct... but even under the conventions, their behaviors were allowed and they were "lawful combatants" as long as they operated under national orders and command structure.
The idea of "irregular" forces gets messy.
As a practical matter, whoever wins writes the history. If you're asking that independently, what's the law? I'd say that if an irregular force is identifiable, operating under a national command authority that is a beligerent, and is abiding by IHL and customary international laws of armed conflict (not just outright murdering everyone, etc.), then those forces are accorded more protections than civilians, but not every protection given to a lawful combatant who is properly identified.
I know that answer is deeply unsatisfying... but I think that is indeed the answer.
Thank you for this! Restacking because I believe many of us “normies” are getting educated beyond belief about many things, many laws and how to stand up for our decency as a country and in our need to protect and defend our US Constitution. And our rule of law way of life.
Of course, Israel, with the support of the US, is breaking all of these rules all the time in Gaza setting the precedent. There doesn't seem to be any true international oversight with teeth enough to stop it.
Surely you meant to write: "Hamas is breaking all of these rules in Gaza, with international public support from people who mistake the consequences for the crime".
Might it cut both ways? Which could be an additional explanation of the total ferocity of the conflict.
No. We are commenting to an article about perfidy. Hamas was the one fighting in civilian clothing, firing rockets from schools, using hospitals as headquarters and transporting commanders in ambulances. These are war crimes.
The result is that those entities become valid, lawful military targets because they lose their civilian status. This and the consequential increased inhumanity is the fault of Hamas.
Hamas considers Palestinian civilian deaths as martyrs and uses them in their international propaganda against Israel. The worse it looks, the better for them.
War is terrible, and Hamas started this one in the most horrendous way possible.
What are the odds US military will arrest the 47 maladministration & deliver them in chains to The World court? 47 in Co. sre breaking states laws, national laws and international laws every day. What can, and what must we do?
First, no indictment of the President has been made for war crimes. Thus, there wouldn't be jurisdiction, at the moment, over the President or subordinates if you're trying to make some kind of argument that the ICC had jurisdiction.
Second, even if there were such an indictment, there are other treaties that prohibit the seizing of sovereigns for such crimes (this is the issue with the U.S. seizing Maduro, by the way, among other problems). Seizing Saddam Hussein after the fall, and then putting him up on trial, by the Iraqis, was legitimate. If we attempted to bring him to US District Federal Court or something, that would be legally suspect. If we attempted to bring him to an international tribunal, like the ICC, or some "Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal," that would probably also be problematic, but overcommable.
But the idea that the U.S. continues to function as a sovereign state, and that Trump winds up on trial at the Rome Court like he's Eichmann or something, is pure fantasy in my view.
Third, as for what "can we" and "must we" do, it's demand accountability on these issues from the President, his staff, and Congress. Ultimately, these violations of law are primary and first violations of U.S. law. It's a violation of U.S. law for our military to violate the Geneva Conventions (UCMJ). It's a violation of U.S. federal law for both civilians accompanying the force, and for military officers, to engage in perfidy. It's a violation of U.S. Federal law for officers to accept unlawful orders and execute them.
Unlawfulness isn't the problem here. There's plenty of criminal behavior and accountability by which to see it accounted. The problem here is a lack of will to do so.
This is a razor-sharp, darkly hilarious takedown — “Captain Perfidy” is the perfect moniker for the Dutch government’s current performance.
The way you lay out the contradiction is devastating: they posture as the moral high ground of Europe, lecture everyone on human rights and international law, then quietly enable (or actively support) the very actions they publicly condemn. The “Dutch courage” line is brutal and spot-on — lots of loud virtue-signaling, very little actual backbone when it counts.
The section on the arms exports, the quiet diplomatic shielding, and the selective outrage is particularly damning. It’s not ignorance; it’s calculated hypocrisy. They want the progressive halo without the political cost.
Your writing style here — biting, precise, and unafraid — makes the truth land harder. This is the kind of commentary that cuts through the sanitized mainstream narrative and forces people to confront the reality.
Thank you for not pulling punches. The world needs more voices willing to call out the moral theater for what it is.
Keep writing. Keep exposing. This kind of clarity is rare and necessary. ✊
— let’s get more eyes on this. 🔥
I presume all of this becomes moot if a war is declared. I’m thinking of Allied armies sending disguised military personnel as spies or to support the French Resistance during WW2 as an example. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Oh one other things... spies.
Spies do not have Geneva accorded rights. Spies are not, by definition, lawful combatants entitled to combatant immunity. That part of the "law" of war got clarified post-1945.
That said, espionage (spying), is typically a crime punishable under the domestic legal context, and not somehow an international law of war issue. And other treaties make clear that Nation-States are not supposed to interfere in the operation of domestic law. That's a main tenant of Nation-State sovereignty going all the way back to the Treaty of Westphalia.
That said, you're conflating "spies" from "resistors" both in the pre-1945 and post-1945 context. Civilians who are defending their homes and their domestic territory ARE to be accorded rights similar to lawful combatants, up until they're overwhelmed. So if you're like out there, with your shotgun, and you're shooting at the Germans as they advance on Antwerp or something, then you're protected as if you were an allied soldier (effectively). But once the Germans occupy, and now you're running around blowing shit up, the government imposed by the Germans is basically "the government" under the Geneva Conventions. You still have protection, but it's different than combatant immunity. This is the primary purpose of Fourth Geneva Convention.
If you're a "resistance" member, your protections vary. In the case of World War II, true "resistance" in France, Belgium, etc., those individuals actually identified themselves with armbands. In that regard, they become quasi-lawful-combatants. They're back in the box of "defending their homeland" as an irregular force. So they're entitled to some of the combatant immunities but not everything. For example, they't ypically can't be held individually liable, subject to a drumhead (summarily shot following a court-martial on the battlefield), subject to collective punishments, etc.
That said, again the issue gets complicated because of the likely state of occupation that exists by the "Detaining Power" in the country.
In general, however, none of this matters in the moment. It's not like a Nazi went, "ooops my bad, can't shoot you..." No. They totally shot everyone. Resistance members totally murdered both Nazi civilian and military targets.
At the moment, everyone is bent about "One of us | All of You," on Madame Himmler's podium a few days ago.
That phrase is an anglicization of the policy the SS imposed on Ludice after resistance members assaulted Heydrich (almost killing him. He'd die months later from infection.) The SS rounded up everyone, and had all the men in the town shot.
That was a violation, even at the time, of the collective punishments prohibition. It was also a violation, at the time, of protection under Geneva Four.
Didn't do doodly dick to stop the Nazis. That said, those individuals who conducted and ordered that murder were held accountable.
Plus, Heydrich fucking died in agony from infection. So there's that as a plus... even if the whole town had to give their lives. Heydrich was one evil mofo. :P
It most certainly doesn't become "moot" if war is declared. The rules of armed conflict exist to regulate armed conflict.
Now, if you're wondering how those rules are enforced, during the armed conflict it's "tit-for-tat" typically. After the armed conflict, the victors have the option of subjecting the vanquished to war crimes tribunals. That's what the real legacy of "Nuremberg" was... the idea that personal criminal liability exists for acts in war, and that the malfeasants of those acts can be held personally liable in a venue not connected to the domestic law of either belligerent.
In today's sphere, I'd argue that Court is likely the ICC. However, it need not be the only option. The beligerents who prevail could form an independent tribunal.
Thank you for clearing this out.
But if I understand correctly, the reason Allied soldiers who surreptitiously went to France to hep the resistance during the war were not prosecuted (nor were their superiors, I think) is because the Allies won the war.
Just to be clear, however, given what I just wrote (as I think more), what wouldn't be legal is to take regular forces, dress them up as civilians or resistance, and plop them into the combat zone, and be like "oh ha ha ha... surprise." I mean that's perfidy (although at the time I believe that practice would have been called "treachery.")
Military commandos don't dress up as civilians.
Spies will. But not military forces.
So, if we send military forces into a combat zone, even if they aren't engaged in "combat," the presumption is, they'll be identifiable as combat troops.
Otherwise, they're not to be accorded any protections as lawful combatants. Which typically means summary execution. :P
Well practically that's correct... but even under the conventions, their behaviors were allowed and they were "lawful combatants" as long as they operated under national orders and command structure.
The idea of "irregular" forces gets messy.
As a practical matter, whoever wins writes the history. If you're asking that independently, what's the law? I'd say that if an irregular force is identifiable, operating under a national command authority that is a beligerent, and is abiding by IHL and customary international laws of armed conflict (not just outright murdering everyone, etc.), then those forces are accorded more protections than civilians, but not every protection given to a lawful combatant who is properly identified.
I know that answer is deeply unsatisfying... but I think that is indeed the answer.