ANGUS: Why Canada Has a Stake in Hegseth’s War Crimes
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 9:40 amANGUS: Why Canada Has a Stake in Hegseth’s War Crimes
Charlie Angus - The Resistance - December 03, 2025
EXCERPT: "This answer represented a complete walkaway from Canada’s longstanding commitments to fighting war crimes. Those who commit the crimes may be powerful but they don’t get to decide whether or not they are guilty. The mob boss doesn’t get to decide what is legal and what is not. In light of Hegseth’s actions - including the provocative use of a Canadian cartoon character – Canada’s position must be clear.
The first strike on the boat on September 2 was a serious breach of international law. The second strike was outright murder.
Hegseth is now trying to blame an American admiral for the actions but the entire military chain of command is complicit in actions that are illegal and murderous. The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual is clear on attacking defenceless people:
“Persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck, such that they are no longer capable of fighting, are hors de combat (out of combat).
Persons who have been incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.” . . . .
But there is a more corrosive long-term impact: public displays of cruelty are meant to desensitize the population. It normalizes abuse and arbitrary denial of the rights of the weaker.
The Nazis understood this. So does the Israeli army. Gaza has witnessed horrific violence inflicted on an unarmed population by soldiers who stop to take selfies of their cruelty. . . . . "
[ https://charlieangus.substack.com/p/why ... dium=email ]
Charlie Angus - The Resistance - December 03, 2025
EXCERPT: "This answer represented a complete walkaway from Canada’s longstanding commitments to fighting war crimes. Those who commit the crimes may be powerful but they don’t get to decide whether or not they are guilty. The mob boss doesn’t get to decide what is legal and what is not. In light of Hegseth’s actions - including the provocative use of a Canadian cartoon character – Canada’s position must be clear.
The first strike on the boat on September 2 was a serious breach of international law. The second strike was outright murder.
Hegseth is now trying to blame an American admiral for the actions but the entire military chain of command is complicit in actions that are illegal and murderous. The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual is clear on attacking defenceless people:
“Persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck, such that they are no longer capable of fighting, are hors de combat (out of combat).
Persons who have been incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.” . . . .
But there is a more corrosive long-term impact: public displays of cruelty are meant to desensitize the population. It normalizes abuse and arbitrary denial of the rights of the weaker.
The Nazis understood this. So does the Israeli army. Gaza has witnessed horrific violence inflicted on an unarmed population by soldiers who stop to take selfies of their cruelty. . . . . "
[ https://charlieangus.substack.com/p/why ... dium=email ]