Hegseth declares no quarter will be given | Hacker News Reader

Hegseth declares no quarter will be given

war.gov

26 pointsJasonADrury28 comments

The most chilling statement is this.

"CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better."

Just change his title to Secretary of War Crimes.

> Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies

The Hague Convention IV (which the US is a signatory to) has this to say:

>Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden

>(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

This is a pretty significant statement given that Hegseth is explicitly stating that the US will summarily execute surrendering Iranian combatants.

Of course, but on the other hand: Shucks, he’s just a good old boy.

Just comes off like a puffed-up pigeon strutting around the stage, trying to cover up his own insecurities. The true great military leaders dont act like this. Even Patton, who has that kind of reputation, was far more thoughtful. On the journey to invade North Africa, Patton took the time to study the Quran, to better understand the people of the land he was to fight over.

I doubt Hegseth even knows what it means to give quarter, probably just said it because he thought it sounded tough

That's not limited to "great military leaders". Even ordinary military leaders do not commit war crimes aloud, on their own web sites.

And trying to avoid complicity via "I'm not a criminal, I am merely ignorant of my job" is also not the mark of somebody with even faint pretensions to competence.

Why does this sound like it was written by a sixth grader writing an essay about his favorite video game? I couldn't help but to keep getting a sense of "thou doth protest too much".

I'm going to assume that maybe he's getting a bit too caught up in his own rhetoric, and this doesn't mean that he's actually going to give that order.

Hopefully?

But he should at very least know better if he's the secdef. If anything, the civilian leadership should be more restrained than the military.

And it does signal that no one is briefing him beforehand on things you really should or shouldn't say.

>But he should at very least know better if he's the secdef.

He wasn't selected to know better. He's an ex Fox News commentator and far-right Christian nationalist. He has Nazi tattoos. The right has been salivating for a hardcore military of Spartan chads running "with the safety off" ever since Vietnam and he's giving them exactly the performance they want to see.

"Hacker News needs to do a better job supporting this war!"

— Hegseth, probably, if he knew about HN

Simply saying it in his position is explicitly a war crime already.

> And it does signal that no one is briefing him beforehand on things you really should or shouldn't say.

Or they are and he’s either too stupid to understand why, or too arrogant/sure nothing will ever happen to him, to care. Or probably both.

  Rule 46. Ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited (Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity)

Looks like the US is trying to join the club of Countries Whose Leaders are War Criminals, Russia and Israel being other notable members.

>Looks like the US is trying to join the club of Countries Whose Leaders are War Criminals

"Trying to join?"

The US has had a platinum membership in that club for nearly a century. Usually American leaders are at least smart enough not to say the quiet part out loud.

Why would you assume that? This administration has trumpeted their intents continuously from the rooftop and delivered on their promises every time. Why do people continuously assume that this time, finally, reason and restraint will prevail?

Really hope this doesn't mean a ground invasion in the near future.

Surely this kind of murderous rhetoric is more in line with possible use of nuclear weapons.

If you're announcing that you'll kill surrendering Iranians, it seems to follow that you intend to kill lots of Iranians and are not particularly concerned with the ethical implications.

Not that Trump or his administration have two brain cells to rub together, but who would they even nuke? Teheran? Millions of lives lost, any Iranian support for the war evaporates, and US instantly becomes a pariah state. (Plus, leadership is likely hiding far away from the capital at this point.) The coastline? The Strait of Hormuz becomes an impassible fallout zone and IRGC attacks are decentralized anyway.

> US instantly becomes a pariah state

Aren't we already?

The current administration has torched relationships with essentially every allied country except Israel. From Toronto to Taipei, and across NATO and BRICS, people see the US as a chaotic bully to be dealt with, not a friend or role model.

I don't think that "other countries won't like it" carries any significance at all to the people in power.

By "pariah state," I mean immediate sanctions and closing of borders -- like Russia circa 2022 but more severe.

The US has already nuked a civilian population. Twice. It remains the only country to have done so. And somehow not poly is it not a pariah state, but people think of it as a leader of the "free world". In fact, all school age children have been brainwashed to accept the "the nukes saved lives" argument for a few decades. A bunch of them are going to show up here and downvote this, or argue how I am an idiot and nukes are good. They are always good for other people though, not themselves.

Nuking Tehran would be perfectly in line with stating on TV that you will summarily execute surrendering combatants!

That's just his two cents worth.

Remember Hegseth views himself as a Christian warrior. He was a pick from the heritage foundation, where a Christian nationalist named Russell Vought wrote a lot of the project 2025 plan. This person is unhinged but he has the qualities those pulling the strings want.

Let's not forget that the string pullers are also unhinged

Love the guy, but his doctor should dial back his HRT dosage a touch. What national interest is served by putting out statements like this? Just do, don’t talk.

That caught my attention as well. I can make a couple guesses. We are fighting religious zealots that do not surrender. They historically have waited out aggressors in deep bunkers. My guess is that Pete is trying to match our rhetoric with their zealotry otherwise we are just a joke to them. If the actions of the military match his rhetoric then we may be respected as legitimate adversaries. Of course "No Quarter" violates international law but AFAIK nobody follows such laws any more and nobody outside of specific regions of Africa specific warlords have been prosecuted for it in recent times. That's of course just a guess.

It could also be projection of the Templar's in reference to one of his tats fighting the Muslims during the Crusades. There is talk in one of their documents of preparing the world for the return of Jesus Christ. That should probably concern people a bit more, I think. It appears both sides want this to be a holy war of sorts. It is creating a bit of a stir. [1] There are no rules in a holy war beyond Victory or Death. Even if this is all truly just rhetoric it should concern people as such times can be excuses to implement very draconian laws.

[1] - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2026/03/03/military-offi...

Do you think surrendering combatants should be killed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com