The real question is in these split off scenarios these pilot may have already been airborne for surveillance and then given an order to engage and is provided limited information beyond that. I do feel like that could differentiate from the Nuremberg defense where an unlawful order lasted years

There are times when told to engage that you are so far down stream that getting the intel and being able to determine legality isn’t viable. Where as the Nuremberg trials the holdout and concentration camps had plenty of time to come to the conclusion it was unlawful

Right, but when you aren’t at war, you haven’t attempted to stop the vessel, and it hasn’t shot at you?

I guess I don’t know what ROI looks like in international waters. Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of questions here. And we will never be provided the level in intel to know how bad it really is. For all we know they provided the pilot with bogus or half assed intel and had to assume legitimate

That is a possibility. Like I said, I think they need to answer some questions.

Agreed but with no one willing to hold a certain person accountable for issuing unlawful orders then those who followed them likely can’t be held accountable and we will never get answers

He keeps saying "I can do whatever I want. I'm the president." People in the chain of command should know about it (it's on Fox News), and they should have had time to think about whether that's actually true.

What is “illegal” when you have a position with authority and no one to hold you accountable?

The natural conclusion being it should *not* have been followed.

Exactly. That Navy ship should be captured, and the crew tried. Period.

Sure does to me too. Big time. It was an unprovoked attack. Nor boarded and inspected, the Navy was not fired upon or threatened in any way. They literally just looked at the boat and said... "that looks like a drug boat. Let's sink it."

Hey @000iamsoops.bsky.social is the UK broadcasting any news on this☝️

I've not really seen it yet today

Here's a link. At your convenience. www.bbc.com/news/article...

I find myself in agreement with my British colleagues.

100% !

Bloody hell!

That pilot and ship’s captain might have some things to answer for, sad to say.

They brought it on themselves. They have a stated duty to not obey unlawful orders.

At which point, I say charge them.