this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
848 points (97.9% liked)

World News

54818 readers
2290 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The article references the geneva convention as the document that requires rescuing the sailors. So that is where that part comes from. It is of cpurse unlikely to be as simply worded as that. So lets agree it may not be strictly speaking illegal. However, illegal is whatever the prosecutor decides to prosecute for and that the judge agrees is illegal. In some cases a jury too.

But let's put that aside. My goal was to identify the person who was the last person to reasonably expect to reject the order. In this case the captain of the sub. Name and shame. Give people in that position in the future at least some reason to pause and think before doing such things. Just following orders doesn't cut it at that level. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a moral one. We need to shine a light on those people, let them know we know what they did. Make them live with that.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Again. This wasn't an illegal order. There's nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They're targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.

If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they'd be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.

Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don't have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they're doing.

So unless you're given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people's lives may very well depend on it. I don't think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.

You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you've laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So I wasn't talking about the strike as much as not aiding the sailors. Sinking the boat, while reprehensible, would be a hard order to defy. Rescuing the sailors until other help arrived though. That would be reasonable to do, even if ordered not to. Leaning on the Geneva convention as support may not save a person. But it would still be the honorable thing to do.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If the US had other ships nearby, closer than Sri Lankas ships, and still deliberately chose to not help the sailors in the water. That would be utterly reprehensible.

As for the submarine, I can understand why they did not want to surface.