General Discussion

mahatmakanejeeves

(69,923 posts) Fri Mar 13, 2026, 02:09 PM Mar 13

Apropos of SecDef's remarks this morning: Denial of quarter--even the declaration of no quarter--is a war crime.

Reposted by Little Excursion Hat
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social‪‬

Brian Finucane
‪@bcfinucane.bsky.social‬

✋ Former USG war crimes lawyer here.

Apropos of SecDef's remarks this morning:

Denial of quarter—even the declaration of no quarter—is a war crime.

And recognized as such by the US Government.

From DoD's Manual for Military Commissions.

(1) The accused declared, ordered, or otherwise indicated that there shall be no survivors
or surrender accepted;
(2) The accused thereby intended to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities such
that there would be no survivors or surrender accepted;
(3) It was foreseeable that circumstances would be such that a practicable and reasonable
ability to accept surrender would exist;
(4) The accused was in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate
forces to which the declaration or order was directed; and
(5) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with hostilities.
ALT
11:58 AM · Mar 13, 2026

âœ‹ Former USG war crimes lawyer here.

Apropos of SecDef's remarks this morning:

Denial of quarterâ€”even the declaration of no quarterâ€”is a war crime.

And recognized as such by the US Government.

From DoD's Manual for Military Commissions.
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) 2026-03-13T15:58:04.698Z

Brian Finucane
‪@bcfinucane.bsky.social‬

"Declaring that no quarter will be given" is specifically prohibited by Art 23 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, which means it is a war crime under US domestic law by virtue of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S. Code § 2441).
12:16 PM · Mar 13, 2026

"Declaring that no quarter will be given" is specifically prohibited by Art 23 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, which means it is a war crime under US domestic law by virtue of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S. Code Â§ 2441).
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) 2026-03-13T16:16:36.654Z

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Apropos of SecDef's remarks this morning: Denial of quarter--even the declaration of no quarter--is a war crime. (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Mar 13 OP

Can you hang people for war crimes? leftstreet Mar 13 #1

Just give them "no quarter". Then you can do anything you want to them. (per hogs-breath). erronis Mar 13 #7

They don't care JBTaurus83 Mar 13 #2

We may not have a choice WSHazel Mar 13 #3

Yes they will orangecrush Mar 13 #5

I'll be very happy if you are correct JBTaurus83 Mar 13 #17

In Kegsbreath's mind, the only war crime will occur ultralite001 Mar 13 #4

Obvious to anyone but that fuckwit orangecrush Mar 13 #6

Did he actually say that? pfitz59 Mar 13 #8

I bet he was itching to use that Figarosmom Mar 13 #9

helluva message to be sending to the Iranians as the U.S. prepares.... OGBuzz Mar 13 #10

I wonder if he flies this flag at home? LiberalArkie Mar 13 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author BeneteauBum Mar 13 #12

My self deleted message was too violent BeneteauBum Mar 13 #13

It's all moot. progressoid Mar 13 #14

Don will pardon them. He's used to pardoning large unruly crowds. spanone Mar 13 #15

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Buddyzbuddy Mar 13 #16

There's a good reason people in positions like this need to choose their words carefully. mahatmakanejeeves Mar 14 #18

"No stupid rules of engagement." moondust Mar 14 #19

Legal experts alarmed over Pete Hegseth's 'no quarter' statement LetMyPeopleVote Mar 15 #20

MS NOW- The dangerous significance of Pete Hegseth's 'no quarter' Iran war pledge LetMyPeopleVote Mar 15 #21

leftstreet

(40,766 posts)

1. Can you hang people for war crimes?

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 02:13 PM

Mar 13

erronis

(23,931 posts)

7. Just give them "no quarter". Then you can do anything you want to them. (per hogs-breath).

Reply to leftstreet (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:31 PM

Mar 13

JBTaurus83

(1,421 posts)

2. They don't care

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 02:14 PM

Mar 13

And no one will be held accountable.

WSHazel

(762 posts)

3. We may not have a choice

Reply to JBTaurus83 (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 02:26 PM

Mar 13

We are going to have to convince the rest of the world to trust us again if Trump is ever removed from power, and the rest of the world will demand accountability.

I am terrified about a coordinated attack on the dollar. A currency collapse is often how empires end.

orangecrush

(30,395 posts)

5. Yes they will

Reply to JBTaurus83 (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:21 PM

Mar 13

I will not comply in advance

JBTaurus83

(1,421 posts)

17. I'll be very happy if you are correct

Reply to orangecrush (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 08:23 PM

Mar 13

I’ve seen zero evidence for your assertion.

ultralite001

(2,555 posts)

4. In Kegsbreath's mind, the only war crime will occur

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 03:21 PM

Mar 13

when Iran does not surrender, unconditionally or otherwise...

orangecrush

(30,395 posts)

6. Obvious to anyone but that fuckwit

Reply to ultralite001 (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:22 PM

Mar 13

That ain't gonna happen.

pfitz59

(12,724 posts)

8. Did he actually say that?

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:32 PM

Mar 13

'No quarter'? What a loon!

Figarosmom

(12,082 posts)

9. I bet he was itching to use that

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:37 PM

Mar 13

Phrase like he just found out what it meant.

Ship them all to the Hauge when this is over.

OGBuzz

(327 posts)

10. helluva message to be sending to the Iranians as the U.S. prepares....

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:38 PM

Mar 13

for a possible land incursion. Just read that 2,500 marines and at least one amphibious assault ship are headed to the Middle East. It doesn't look like Trump is feeling the end of the war in his bones yet.

LiberalArkie

(19,826 posts)

11. I wonder if he flies this flag at home?

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 04:46 PM

Mar 13

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

BeneteauBum This message was self-deleted by its author.

BeneteauBum

(525 posts)

13. My self deleted message was too violent

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 05:08 PM

Mar 13

I practice peace. Sometimes things just piss me off and I react in a manner which I generally don’t comport myself.

Peace ☮️

progressoid

(53,204 posts)

14. It's all moot.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 05:10 PM

Mar 13

We (America) have violated numerous treaties and international laws without consequence. It's folly to think that this one will be any different.

spanone

(141,658 posts)

15. Don will pardon them. He's used to pardoning large unruly crowds.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 05:12 PM

Mar 13

Buddyzbuddy

(2,659 posts)

16. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2026, 05:34 PM

Mar 13

If Commodus pardons Whiskey Pete, can't he still be brought back for military trials? Just a thought.

Ultimately, I would love to see them in front of the Hague. But I'm aware, that is not likely.

mahatmakanejeeves

(69,923 posts)

18. There's a good reason people in positions like this need to choose their words carefully.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2026, 12:18 AM

Mar 14

Reposted by Mike Masnick
https://bsky.app/profile/masnick.com

Owen Barcala
‪@obarcala.bsky.social‬

There's a good reason people in positions like this need to choose their words carefully. He's using "no quarter" because he thinks it means "we're being tough," but it's a real term and opponents will take a different meaning

This pushes opponents to declare no quarter because we did it first

‪Matt Novak‬
‪@paleofuture.bsky.social‬
· 12h
Hegseth: "We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies."

No quarter is the refusal to take prisoners and instead just execute everyone. It's been considered a war crime for over a century.
Pete Hegseth

2:06 PM · Mar 13, 2026

There's a good reason people in positions like this need to choose their words carefully. He's using "no quarter" because he thinks it means "we're being tough," but it's a real term and opponents will take a different meaning

This pushes opponents to declare no quarter because we did it first
— Owen Barcala (@obarcala.bsky.social) 2026-03-13T18:06:30.258Z

Matt Novak
‪@paleofuture.bsky.social‬

Hegseth: "We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies."

No quarter is the refusal to take prisoners and instead just execute everyone. It's been considered a war crime for over a century.
Pete Hegseth

11:36 AM · Mar 13, 2026

Hegseth: "We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies."

No quarter is the refusal to take prisoners and instead just execute everyone. It's been considered a war crime for over a century.
— Matt Novak (@paleofuture.bsky.social) 2026-03-13T15:36:46.421Z

moondust

(21,290 posts)

19. "No stupid rules of engagement."

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2026, 12:29 AM

Mar 14

He said that on March 2.

Link to tweet

LetMyPeopleVote

(180,007 posts)

20. Legal experts alarmed over Pete Hegseth's 'no quarter' statement

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2026, 05:52 PM

Mar 15

Hegseth is firing JAG officers and reorganizing the JAG office because he wants to commit war crimes. Hegseth just committed a war crime by promising that "No Quarter" will be given to any enemy of the trump administration

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's offhand remark that the U.S. would show "no quarter, no mercy for our enemies," in Iran.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-14T03:00:29Z

https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-2676101135

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's offhand remark that the U.S. would show "no quarter, no mercy for our enemies," in Iran. In military context, "no quarter" means killing enemy combatants without allowing surrender.

This alarmed legal experts, who warned the statement could constitute a war crime. Even just saying it could count as a violation of international law and U.S. military code, they added.

Wall Street Journal national security reporter Alex Ward flagged the comment as violating international humanitarian law under the Geneva Convention.

Claremont McKenna College professor Jack Pitney cited the Defense Department's own Law of War Manual, which explicitly forbids declaring no quarter will be given. International Crisis Group senior adviser Brian Finucane, a former U.S. government war crimes lawyer, stated that even declaring no quarter constitutes a war crime punishable by up to life imprisonment under the DoD Manual for Military Commissions.

Stanford law professor Tom Dannenbaum confirmed declaring no quarter is prohibited under international humanitarian law and itself amounts to a war crime.

LetMyPeopleVote

(180,007 posts)

21. MS NOW- The dangerous significance of Pete Hegseth's 'no quarter' Iran war pledge

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2026, 06:32 PM

Mar 15

The defense secretary’s disdain for rules of engagement and the laws of war is apparent. And it could lead to war crimes — by Americans and against Americans.

The dangerous significance of Pete Hegsethâ€™s â€˜no quarterâ€™ Iran war pledge -
The defense secretaryâ€™s disdain for rules of engagement and the laws of war is apparent. And it could lead to war crimes â€” by Americans and against Americans.

www.ms.now/opinion/hegs...
— Susan Cooper aka Buzzedition (@buzzedition.bsky.social) 2026-03-15T03:45:22.636Z

https://www.ms.now/opinion/hegseth-war-crimes-iran-no-quarter

It’s no secret that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doesn’t care much for the laws of war. In the opening days of the war against Iran, he proudly said the ongoing assault involved “no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.” Standing before the press Friday morning, Hegseth again promised “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” .....

As MS NOW’s Julia Jester rightly noted, Friday’s comments from Hegseth calling for “no quarter” stand out for even more implicitly greenlighting the military to violate the broader laws of war as well as the military’s own longstanding rules of engagement:

Orders or threats of “no quarter” — a term used for killing enemies who surrender or are rendered unable to fight — have been considered violations of international law since the Hague Convention of 1899, with “directions to give no quarter” listed as a war crime following World War II. […]

And it’s not just global rules that are being flouted. Not only does the term no quarter violate the Geneva Convention, it defies the U.S. Marine Corps’ own rules of engagement: “Do not engage anyone who has surrendered or is out of battle due to sickness or wounds.”

.....That seems unlikely given a new effort from Hegseth to undertake a “ruthless overhaul” of the military’s judge advocate general corps and their fellow civilian lawyers at the Pentagon. As The Atlantic reported, the concern with this review is that it provides cover for an attempt to “reduce the ranks of lawyers, purge internal dissent, and eliminate guardrails designed to restrict the military from carrying out legally dubious orders.” And while operations like the sinking of an Iranian warship returning from a multinational training exercise are technically allowed under the laws of war, it’s hard to say they were fully legal under American law, given the administration’s lack of a clear legal rationale for the war effort.

Despite what Hegseth may think, words matter in times of war. Beyond conveying the message of what is gained through fighting, it is only through clear communication that the orders from the top can be carried out by the servicemembers who’ve sworn an oath to obey them. His refusal to acknowledge that there are times where things other than body count should factor into combat decisions threatens the cohesion and professionalism of the military.

Likewise, it’s the global commitment to the established laws of war that keeps American civilians safe and untargeted. In rejecting them with his statements, he is incentivizing those who serve under his command to not only discard their humanity but destroy a shield protecting their fellow Americans from having the same standard of “maximum lethality” carried out against them.

Reply to this discussion