Makes those forces seem a lot less "special" if their highly trained SEALs on their super secret mission can get startled by a bunch of fishers probably going about their daily routine.
Truly outstanding planning, reconnaissance, and decision-making in the field. If I ever need some guys in swimwear taken out, I know who to call.
North Korean media likes to depict US soldiers as what can only be summarized as cruel demons. Depictions of US soldiers torturing and killing civilians are especially common[1]. If they were ever warming up to the west, this incident among others should serve as a good reminder to not alter course.
> [..] talks have fallen apart and North Korea has forged ahead with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program.
I'd build more nuclear weapons as fast as I could as well if that's who I'm dealing with.
My bad. I corrected the mistake. Next lunch order from Crayola is on me.
neilv · 3h ago
> The civilians appeared to be diving for shellfish when they inadvertently came across the detachment of SEALs as they splashed ashore at night, the Times reported. The American forces opened fire, killing all those aboard the small fishing vessel, the report said, without specifying the number of casualties. [...] A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said.
Can someone explain?
Were they believed to be militants? Were they recognized as civilians but they took up weapons? Is there a rule that you can kill a non-militant who might raise the alarm to militants, even if not at war? Were there unusual orders in effect for this mission? Something else?
jandrewrogers · 3h ago
There are different clandestine and covert legal authorities under which these kinds of operations can be conducted with different rules of engagement. While most don't, some of these authorities may allow for killing of innocents in furtherance of the mission. The article implies that the rules of engagement for this particular mission allowed for the elimination of witnesses.
Governments around the world have strong incentives to keep this kind of thing out of the news even when they are on the receiving end, so it is relatively rare for it to leak into the public sphere no matter which government ends up killing innocents.
neilv · 2h ago
Thanks for the explanation.
Isn't this a pretty dangerous power and precedent to have, if you're the good guys?
Especially if you don't have a lot of confidence that the top of the command chain will always be of the utmost integrity and decency?
jandrewrogers · 1h ago
At least in the US, there is a systematic separation of concerns and quite a few authorization interlocks. These are intentionally designed to make it nearly impossible for a rogue unit to operate with legal cover. Everybody who is a part of that legal process takes their bit very seriously and it isn’t just a bunch of political appointees.
Some types of operations require explicit and direct sign-off by the President, which provides legal sanction for people doing the work. Even in these cases, the operational details are left to the career professionals.
That isn’t to say that organizations can’t leave the reservation (see: FBI under Hoover) but that over time they’ve built up a lot of internal structure to limit it with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is useful to note that almost all of this was invented out of whole cloth after WW2, so the US has had to learn a lot of lessons the hard way.
neilv · 1h ago
That systems of interlocks sounds somewhat reassuring.
Though, what we can see recently of some checks on other extraordinary powers don't seem to be working well.
AnimalMuppet · 1h ago
"Elimination of witnesses" makes sense for a cable-tapping mission. You can't let the country know that you tapped their cable. It would ruin the whole point.
On the other hand, if you leave a bunch of dead bodies with bullets in them, a reasonably-competent government is going to figure out that something happened there, and if the cable is near there, it's a reasonably likely candidate...
jandrewrogers · 44m ago
They don’t necessarily know what the mission was, just that the mission left dead bodies. Furthermore, they don’t know which country did it. There are probably a dozen countries that would do a mission like this against them with various objectives.
You also have to consider the possibility that the mission was intentionally designed as a distraction, such that the purpose was to leave evidence of a mission.
mig39 · 3h ago
"US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission, NYT says" is the title of the article. Why is it different when submitted?
ekianjo · 3h ago
> A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said.
Justified against unarmed civilians?
crikeykangaroo · 3h ago
US Special Forces - not surprising. The Western propaganda is what sells them as heroes.
bediger4000 · 3h ago
Fort Bragg Fever
padjo · 3h ago
Killing unarmed civilians is SOP for the US military.
victorbjorklund · 3h ago
Wait until you find out how many unarmed germans died in ww2.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 3h ago
You can often cap someone if you feel threatened. It's not a war crime to be wrong. Shoot first and do the paperwork later.
crikeykangaroo · 3h ago
That's indeed how it usually goes with these lunatics.
1) Commit war crime.
2) Face the music for a moment.
3) Go to a friendly podcast and raise support (just say you have trauma and pain, and the people you've killed were animals anyway).
4) Become a free man.
5) Optionally for Seals: write a book with a chapter about hell week (can be done @ step 2 as well)
braincat31415 · 3h ago
Geneva Convention articles allow targeting civilians only when they directly participate in hostilities. Other than that, a willful killing of civilians is always a war crime. The Pentagon setting its own rules of engagement does not change anything.
Following the same rules, civilian defender in the US will find him/herself in prison very quickly. Ability, opportunity and intent will not be proven by stating that the defender felt threatened.
canada_dry · 3h ago
When confronted with the story today in the Oval Office Trump said: "I don't know anything about it".
Delivered with the same bland expression he uses when he's clearly lying.
jackb4040 · 3h ago
The original title is "US special forces killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission". Your change is... questionable
hnlurker22 · 3h ago
What's questionable about it. It was just shorter.
John23832 · 3h ago
It totally changes the context?
It removes the focus of the killing of civilians and makes it "aw shucks, the mission didn't go as planned".
Truly outstanding planning, reconnaissance, and decision-making in the field. If I ever need some guys in swimwear taken out, I know who to call.
North Korean media likes to depict US soldiers as what can only be summarized as cruel demons. Depictions of US soldiers torturing and killing civilians are especially common[1]. If they were ever warming up to the west, this incident among others should serve as a good reminder to not alter course.
> [..] talks have fallen apart and North Korea has forged ahead with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program.
I'd build more nuclear weapons as fast as I could as well if that's who I'm dealing with.
[1] Some examples of North Korean anti-American propaganda for your viewing pleasure: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/north-korea-anti-american-p...
Can someone explain?
Were they believed to be militants? Were they recognized as civilians but they took up weapons? Is there a rule that you can kill a non-militant who might raise the alarm to militants, even if not at war? Were there unusual orders in effect for this mission? Something else?
Governments around the world have strong incentives to keep this kind of thing out of the news even when they are on the receiving end, so it is relatively rare for it to leak into the public sphere no matter which government ends up killing innocents.
Isn't this a pretty dangerous power and precedent to have, if you're the good guys?
Especially if you don't have a lot of confidence that the top of the command chain will always be of the utmost integrity and decency?
Some types of operations require explicit and direct sign-off by the President, which provides legal sanction for people doing the work. Even in these cases, the operational details are left to the career professionals.
That isn’t to say that organizations can’t leave the reservation (see: FBI under Hoover) but that over time they’ve built up a lot of internal structure to limit it with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is useful to note that almost all of this was invented out of whole cloth after WW2, so the US has had to learn a lot of lessons the hard way.
Though, what we can see recently of some checks on other extraordinary powers don't seem to be working well.
On the other hand, if you leave a bunch of dead bodies with bullets in them, a reasonably-competent government is going to figure out that something happened there, and if the cable is near there, it's a reasonably likely candidate...
You also have to consider the possibility that the mission was intentionally designed as a distraction, such that the purpose was to leave evidence of a mission.
Justified against unarmed civilians?
1) Commit war crime.
2) Face the music for a moment.
3) Go to a friendly podcast and raise support (just say you have trauma and pain, and the people you've killed were animals anyway).
4) Become a free man.
5) Optionally for Seals: write a book with a chapter about hell week (can be done @ step 2 as well)
Following the same rules, civilian defender in the US will find him/herself in prison very quickly. Ability, opportunity and intent will not be proven by stating that the defender felt threatened.
Delivered with the same bland expression he uses when he's clearly lying.
It removes the focus of the killing of civilians and makes it "aw shucks, the mission didn't go as planned".
No comments yet