it's like the Chiarella-based attacks all over again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5804056&forum_id=2E#49469879)

if so, please describe how you think this went down

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5804056&forum_id=2E#49469942)

“ 🚨 CALLING ALL JOURNALISTS

Listen up. The further I progress in j school, the less patience I have for journalistic malpractice when covering int'l law involving armed conflict in our media coverage. Take this story @CNN by @NatashaBertrand for example.

For now, I'll focus on ONE specific #LOAC issue covered in this story since Natasha also addresses it in QTd post: when a person qualifies as "hors de combat" - or out of the fight due to sickness, illness, injury, or detention.

According to anonymous sources in connected stories @washingtonpost & @theintercept, operators @Southcom & @SOCSOUTH attacked 2 suspected narco-terrorists somewhere in open waters of the Caribbean who survived an initial strike on their boat. This is sometimes referred to colloquially as a "double tap" attack & it was supposedly a response to guidance from @SecWar @PeteHegseth to "kill everyone."

Natasha seeks commentary from Sarah Harrison @CrisisGroup, who claims it's unlawful pursuant to #LOAC to attack somebody who "is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely." Natasha reiterates this claim using slightly different language in her post @X QTd here.

Here's the thing: both source & journalist are wrong. And confirming this is as easy as opening the latest edition of DoD Law of War Manual & searching for "hors de combat".

If journalists did so, they would encounter plenty of material confirming Harrison's characterization of int'l law - and those who express similar commentary - is incorrect. But don't just take my word for it: read the attached excerpts of the Manual for yourself (highlights added for emphasis).

The common theme among these excerpts can be summarized by one simple phrase: a person is only rendered hors de combat "under circumstances where it is feasible for the opposing party to accept the surrender." Any guesses what these anonymous sources at the center of this whole media frenzy fail to establish?

That's right! That it was feasible to accept the surrender of these suspected narco-terrorists under the circumstances on the high seas.

If it was not, then the suspected civilians taking direct part in hostilities were NOT hors de combat. Period.

Now, if a reporter were engaged in balanced & informed journalism, s/he would do some research to discover this standard so they can at least ensure their source addresses it. In this case, it might sound something like this during the interview:

"Ms. Harrison, you said somebody who is 'hors de combat and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely,' but are you able to determine whether US military forces were able to accept the surrender of the people on or near the boat under the circumstances at the time? If so, what is the source of this factual knowledge? And if you are not able to confirm the circumstances, how does this impact your claim that this 'double tap' strike violated LOAC?"

As a reader, think about how much answers to these questions might influence your understanding of the (un?)lawfulness of this reported strike. Yet, this context isn't presented to you because the person writing the story - the journalist - doesn't understand the body of law she's reporting to you.

And here's the thing. It's not just Natasha Bertrand or CNN or this one article or this one issue in the article. This professional #journalisticmalpractice manifests almost every time journalists report on int'l law involving armed conflict, for similar reasons as those addressed above.

Think about how often this body of law is addressed in news coverage. Getting it wrong on 1 issue in 1 article is bad enough. For this to happen nearly every time media covers applied LOAC creates a global pandemic of misinformation.

Quite simply, standards actually being applied in practice aren't consistent with expectations created by media coverage.

The lesson is simple & clear: do better. We owe it to our audience to find ways to get LOAC right”

https://x.com/briancox_rltw/status/1994660774292119870

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5804056&forum_id=2E#49470155)

Like it seems somewhat morally wrong to shoot injured soldiers lying in the battlefield as you pass them by instead of capturing them and rendering aid.

It feels different when you're sending missiles from 3,000 miles away.

Like if Obama had drone striked Bin Laden, and we saw him crawling away, do we have to just let him go? Doesn't seem like we would...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5804056&forum_id=2E#49470207)

https://x.com/ArmchairW/status/1994807368308379692?t=JTtgdFq3PxCmNCvFqNmclg&s=19

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5804056&forum_id=2E#49470761)