[keepamovin]

That's one way to assess it. Can you take the cost if your presence is detected?

Maybe nothing happens. How likely is nothing? And if your presence finds it ways to the authorities, what's the cost? Likely, NK will patch what might be your best chance at advance warning.

As fishing is dangerous and many never return, their plausibly 'accidental' deaths provide cover to keep the secrecy and your future access intact.

Now the story leaks out from inside - what are the consequences? I don't know.

[impossiblefork]

It doesn't matter if you can take the cost.

It's forbidden to kill civilians. You can only kill non-civilians, and there's nothing allowing you to hide the bodies of civilians or interfere with their burial rites.

[arcatech]

The article states that it was NOT forbidden to kill civilians. Or at least, the US considered it justified.

[chubot]

the US considered it justified

s/ the US / "some bureaucratic process within the military"

which is almost certainly politically influenced, as many decisions at this level are

In this case, I don't think the bureaucracy reflects the will of the people

[impossiblefork]

The US has signed treaties according to which it is forbidden and these treaties are additionally so special that they're treated as applying to even non-signatories, the so-called customary international law.

[keepamovin]

Specialist missions normally have custom RoE not always mirroring those in conventional theatre, but nevertheless appropriate for the mission specifics.

[impossiblefork]

Yes, but this it's clearly forbidden to make civilians object of attack, and it doesn't matter whether you risk discovery or whatever. Surely the RoE should be at least as restrictive as IHL.

I think it might be legal to hide the body, but if you do so you must do something to ensure that it can be recovered, either informing the enemy afterwards or some other measure to that effect.

[keepamovin]

Does a civilian become a combatant or pose a threat if they could derail, though awareness of your presence, your mission to prevent NK making civilians the object of attack on massive scale with nuclear weapons?

[impossiblefork]

No.

[keepamovin]

Ok. So then, how can you pretend to be against the killing of civilians if you choose more rather than less of it?

[justacrow]

I don't think it's so much about the Rules of Engagement but more about "Don't indiscriminately murder people"

[keepamovin]

Indiscriminate would be nuclear weapons on cities. This mission’s ultimate goal was to prevent NK doing that.

If you could stop NK doing that, would you pull the trigger? Would you make a targeted kill of a person who compromised that mission by discovering it?

[iamevn]

No? I don't think this is the trap you think it is.

[keepamovin]

Maybe it's not, but that's the point: trying to understand what it is from the point of view of people who did it.

[w0de0]

They’re detected now. Right now. Front page of the NY Times. The murders didn’t do shit.