Andrew Gross

Just got off the phone with an operator who served in the same T1 unit @joekent16jan19 served in. Got an earful of how he has always been a sycophant who leveraged his fake-MAGA obeisance to leap from being a tactical operator and failed Congressional candidate to a being a senior IC official. He made a great point I hadn’t even thought of. By undermining the man who was actually elected by 77 million Americans to be the Commander-in-Chief and who has sole strategic insight and responsibility for the security of America, Kent has selfishly undermined the future of any veteran who actually should be trusted with such a position and understands what it means to honorably serve the Republic out of uniform. Joe Kent prioritized himself over the will of the American People. Indefensible.

Hi there, Rep. Khanna. Retired Army JAG here & current prof of int'l law. And you are way out of your depth. You should consider sticking to legislating & leaving #LOAC commentary to actual specialists. Like me. Allow me to explain. First off, if a power plant is "dual use," then attacking it is, by definition, NOT an "indiscriminate bombing." Here's why. As DoD Law of War Manual notes, this term is often "used to describe objects that are used by both the armed forces and the civilian population, such as power stations" (pic 1). The Manual also correctly points out this term has no legal significance. Either something qualifies as a military objective such that directing an attack against it is permitted, or it's a civilian object such that it may not be made the object of attack. See the problem yet? That's right! If something is "dual-use," it qualifies as a military objective...and directing an attack against a military objective is, by definition, NOT "indiscriminate" (pic 2). Back to pic 1, the Manual also notes that when attacking "dual-use" objects, "it will be appropriate to consider in applying the principle of proportionality the harm to the civilian population expected to result from the attack on such a military objective." You might notice I emphasized "proportionality" & "expected" there, and I did so because it's a preview to your next massive error. Here's what you claim about proportionality in your 🧵: "Proportionality forbids attacks where expected incidental civilian harm including effects like loss of hospital power, water pumps failing, food spoilage or extreme heat or cold exposure. This is excessive compared to the concrete military gain per Article 51(5)(b)." We'll get to your selection of source (AP I) later. For now, let's focus on how badly you botched the proportionality rule. To describe what the actual rule is supposed to look like, let's go back to the Manual. As it observes, personnel engaged in hostilities "must refrain from attacks in which the expected loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained" (pic 3). Now, I added bold text to the "expected" at the beginning & end because this highlights your next mistake. Yes you correctly note expected incidental harm is part of the equation, but you left out "expected" on the military advantage component. This is a massive error because you need to be able to tell what the expected incidental harm is & the expected (or anticipated) concrete & direct military advantage is for each attack in order to assess whether the former was "excessive in relation to" the latter. And, do you have any intel indicating what degree of incidental harm AND concrete & direct military advantage is for each attack you purport to be addressing? No, of course you don't. As such, you're not conducting a legitimate proportionality assessment. Which, is easy if you don't properly articulate law. Hell, you can make pretty much anything seem illegal if you can come up with any bullshit articulation of the legal standard you feel like fabricating. But we're not allowed to do that in actual practice. And so, you shouldn't either in public discourse, or else you're creating a false impression that potentially lawful conduct is illegal. And another thing - I noticed you left off the direct part of "concrete & direct military advantage" in your bullshit version of proportionality. That matters because remote harms need not be factored (pic 4). Some prospective harms you mentioned probably are direct enough, but others...not so much. Finally, I also noticed you claim AP I binds 🇺🇸 "as customary international law." But not all of AP I is customary, which is why I draw from the Manual instead. I'll finish off with a simple pro tip: stay in your lane. Leave LOAC analysis to @DeptofWar. And actual experts...like me.