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

[LetMyPeopleVote]

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 Hegseth’s ‘no quarter’ Iran war pledge -
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.

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.

[Irish_Dem]

1. So when a US military plane gets shot down over enemy territory

you now know what will happen to anyone still alive onboard.

And US ground troops also know what will happen if captured.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. Why Pete Hegseth's talk about 'no quarter' could itself be against U.S. and international law

The secretary of defense is a military leader in the chain of command. Whether Hegseth appreciates it or not, his words alone have legal significance.

Why Pete Hegseth’s talk about ‘no quarter’ could itself be against U.S. and international law

www.ms.now/opinion/pete...

— Mike Walker (@newnarrative.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T11:23:17.383Z

https://www.ms.now/opinion/pete-hegseth-no-quarter-war-crime

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, during a televised press briefing at the Pentagon on the Iran war on March 13, vowed this about America’s response to Iran’s ruling regime: “We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.”

These words in themselves could be a violation of both U.S. and international law.

Hegseth’s declaration of “no quarter” implicates a foundational prohibition under the law of war. These are the binding rules agreed to by states that seek to mitigate the horrors and bloodshed of conflict through pragmatic balancing of humanitarian and military considerations. The prohibition of the denial of quarter is a paradigmatic illustration of the law of war advancing both sets of considerations.

Dating back to at least the Civil War, the denial of quarter has been forbidden. As articulated in the 1863 Lieber Code (Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order No. 100), “It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter.” (emphasis added) This rule would subsequently be incorporated into treaties to which the United States is a party, including in the regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV, and as customary law binding on all states. Importantly, this law of war rule applies to air, land and sea warfare.

As reflected in the Lieber Code (and the Department of Defense’s own Law of War Manual), the ban on denial of quarter includes both: 1) a prohibition on conducting hostilities on the basis that legitimate offers of surrender by enemy personnel will not be accepted, but instead that there should be no survivors, and 2) a prohibition on simply declaring no quarter itself.

In other words, the law of war prohibits military leaders from the speech act of announcing “no quarter” alone.....

Denial of quarter is also a war crime under U.S. law. The War Crimes Act criminalizes violations of the following rule: “it is especially forbidden… [t]o declare that no quarter will be given.” Thus U.S. criminal law, like the international law of war, imposes individual liability for the speech act of declaring “no quarter” itself — regardless of whether the declaration is ever implemented.

A declaration of no quarter by a military leader is not only an unlawful order (the subject of a now famous video message from a number of Democratic lawmakers), but one that a court would likely find to be manifestly or patently unlawful. This means that if military subordinates were to execute a directive of no quarter, they would have no viable defense of following superior orders.

Hegseth is a pompous idiot who wants to be macho. Hegseth is endangering our troops with his pronouncements. Our troops will face additional risks is our countries follow Hegseth's example

[Rebl2]

4. Very last

sentence. Do you mean to say if other countries follow Hegseth example?

[themaguffin]

3. It's never ending awful with this regime. Absolutely morally bankrupt & proud of it.