U.S. May Have Committed War Crime In Sinking Of Iranian Ship

The world failed to do anything about Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, why would the U.S. expect any different for itself?

US has been committing war crimes since long time.

“May have.” Thanks for teaching me the cool new way to say “totally did”…

I’m only an armchair admiral, one who questions this whole war, and the sinking of that ship specifically. It was a warship, but it wasn’t in combat operations. I have a feeling we only sank it because Hegseth wanted to torpedo a boat since we haven’t done that since WWII.

That said, surfacing a sub makes it incredibly vulnerable. I can understand not surfacing and attempting a rescue. Radioing in the closest rescuers should satisfy the Geneva Convention’s duties.

I want to clarify because the title doesn’t.

Sinking it was not a war crime, not trying to rescue sailors can be. Though with it being a submarine, I don’t think it would be a possibility to bring them on as I don’t think there would be enough capacity for both crews nor enough capacity to hold that many POW’s.

Why would they care about war crimes against Iran when they have been doing the same thing off of Venezuela for months without repercussions.

Sinking a WARSHIP is a crime? Like I don’t agree with trump or this war but claiming THIS is the problem is kinda dumb. If it’s about not rescuing survivors that’s one thing but I also don’t think a sub could handle many extra people

I mean it’s an Iranian navy ship and Iran is at war with us. Seems like a legitimate target to me

Not the first time this administration has done that

Probably not the most popular comment to make about this but here we go:

I disagree with the article, this was a legal act of war and not a war crime. Acts of war are by their nature extremely violent and frequently unfair, however the arguments presented in the article do not support the thesis. In short:

* Even if the ship was unarmed, they were a commissioned *warship* in the navy and thus legally not civilians.
* Even if the warship had just taken part in a fleet review, they were not *hours de combat* prior to the attack and were sailing home, thus on their way to rearm and become a serious combatant, but were technically combatants nonetheless. Running out of ammo or having no ammo to begin with doesn’t make you *hours de combat*, it makes you easier to kill and your logistics system look incompetent. See the next point.
* By leaving port they became a valid target. Had they remained in port and became interned, they would have gained protections under the laws of war. But they left a neutral port for home, and were in international waters at the time of the attack, as an active warship without support. This was incompetence, not a crime.
* When you sink an enemy warship, you have an obligation to provide assistance to the shipwrecked survivors, not an obligation to rescue them. Historically speaking, rescues are conducted when convenient and left to third parties when available.
* Submarines don’t have the space to take on more survivors than you can count on your hand. The most they do is radio for another ship to take on the survivors, and monitor the life boats if they have nothing better to do for updates until rescue arrives. This is how they have operated since they were introduced as a type of warship over a century ago, this is not a Trump administration thing.

There’s very little basis in international law (the laws of armed conflict and the UNCLOS) to call it a war crime. US and Iran are at war or engaged in military conflict as far as international law is concerned (whether the US calls it a war or “military use of force” and whether POTUS has the legal authority within the US to start military conflicts outside of a formal declaration of war which only congress can do is another matter, but that’s an internal affair internal to the US), and in war or military conflict or whatever you want to call it vessels of the enemy navy are legitimate military targets under international law. Actively shooting at you or not, you don’t have to wait for it to rearm or to get back to theater and start participating in combat operations.

There’s zero sources saying it was unarmed. Warships are almost never unarmed, least of all for drills. Idk why people keep parroting that rumor when there’s zero evidence of it.

BUT BUT BUT, even if it was unarmed and the sub could’ve known that (which there’s no way for the sub to know unless the sub captain gets on the ship and inspects all its armaments), it still would’ve been a legitimate military target! It’s a ship in the Iranian navy. Support ships, logistics ships, military tankers, ISR platforms, troop transports are all unarmed. They’re still military in nature and therefore valid targets in war.

That doesn’t change the tragedy of the loss of life, and who knows how many of those poor sailors even wanted to fight for the Iranian regime, but coldly speaking that’s how war works in the context of international law.

Throw it on the pile.

“May have”

Add it to the pile

At this point is it really a crime if he never gets held accountable for it? We can make a whole list of war crimes he has committed this year alone and nothing has been done about it yet.

Not “may”. “Did”.

And just so we don’t forget, trumps a molesting rapist.