Matt Montazzoli
@legalleadtheway.bsky.social
4.7K followers 1.9K following 1.3K posts
| Law of War | LOAC | Int’l Humanitarian Law | 🇺🇸 Army JAG lawyer. Personal opinions, no employer endorsement, nothing here is legal advice. RLTW!
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Update: Navy Fed also getting paid.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
* trying to see you the concept of a plan for some loitering munitions that are totally going to work and be produced for less than $10k a throw, we swear
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
I love how Krustoffs don’t catch the smoke because they make them square, but Trader Joe’s dares to sell them rounded and will be sued into oblivion.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
I haven’t read deeply - but would welcome any book recs on the topic!
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
My understanding is 1807 abolition of the trade by parliament led to deployment of the famous West African Squadron, but I’m open to learning RN took action before that.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Slave trade also generates universal jurisdiction similar to piracy, but is not a subset of piracy. Distinct “enemy of all mankind” offenses, different UNCLOS articles.
UNCLOS Article 99
Prohibition of the transport of slaves
Every State shall take effective measures to prevent and punish the transport of slaves in ships authorized to fly its flag and to prevent the unlawful use of its flag for that purpose. Any slave taking refuge on board any ship, whatever its flag, shall ipso facto be free.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
"Lethality and honor must coexist in a democratic society’s armed forces."
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
I think that's even more tenuous. Troops are exempt/required to work even during a lapse in appropriations.

Maybe if we change facts to a Boland Amendment situation - where Congress has expressly objected versus merely failed to pass appropriations - & you could convince me rogue exec = private.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Ack you're envisioning a reckoning in a venue where US precedent will be irrelevant... but I think UNCLOS 101 plain reading ("private" vessels, ends) + general state practice/concern for being hoisted by the same petard makes "piracy" an unlikely hook here.
snip from UNCLOS: Article101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
US caselaw breaks the other way - piracy is acts "not taken on behalf of a state."

There's dicta that could support your view that unlawful state actions aren't "public" in a legal sense: "That the perpetrators believe themselves to be serving the public good does not render their ends public."
Snip from INSTITUTE OF CETACEAN RESEARCH v. SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY (9th Cir 2013):
 The district court construed “private ends” as limited to those pursued for “financial enrichment.”  But the common understanding of “private” is far broader.  The term is normally used as an antonym to “public” (e.g., private attorney general) and often refers to matters of a personal nature that are not necessarily connected to finance (e.g., private property, private entrance, private understanding and invasion of privacy).  See Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary 1969 (2d. ed. 1939) (defining “private” to mean “[b]elonging to, or concerning, an individual person, company, or interest”).  We give words their ordinary meaning unless the context requires otherwise. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 8–9 (2004); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 69 (2012).  The context here is provided by the rich history of piracy law, which defines acts taken for private ends as those not taken on behalf of a state.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Piracy typically requires “private ends,” and so excludes State violence.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
I was hoisted by this petard as a young MAJ who firmly believed oplaw uber alles - an adjacent unit SJA threw it out as a solution to a thorny interagency authorities issue, and I’ll be damned if she was not absolutely correct.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
“All law is fiscal law” he muttered to himself, scratching another hash mark into the unseen bricks, joining dozen of its fellow travelers in the darkness.
gigansprogress.bsky.social
"Money Colors Are A Thing" I shriek, as I am walled up like Fortunato
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Anecdotal: uniformed members who bank with USAA show pending deposits, those who bank with Navy Fed do not.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Just make sure you have TSAPrecheck or you’ll have to remove the counterweight, lest ye have to pay for a checked bag.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
I think that matters on the margins, maybe? But I can promise you US troops doing urban fighting w/ intent to annihilate enemy deliberately hiding among civilians is far from “clean.”

Diminution in language skill/local knowledge, incentives for regional actors probably makes it at best a wash.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
If “clean” means “slightly worse than the worst possible outcome,” sure.

But massive collateral damage & ugly civilian harm is essentially a forgone conclusion in an urban fight against a group that deliberately blends in with civilians.

Agree 🇮🇱 carried it out nearly as badly as possible.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
“Clean” is also probably illusory when you’re fighting guerrillas in a place as dense as Gaza.

If you mean less evidence of genocidal intent/minus the insane rhetoric, agree that was possible… but not w/ BiBi’s coalition of whackadoos.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
The idea a “clean” regime change was possible is interesting, but I think unlikely.

The idea that deploying U.S. troops would have facilitated that outcome strikes me as absolutely off the mark.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
“You lot” is a credited Australianism, acceptable for the sake of allied interoperability.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
Instead of limiting to high 3 medals, maybe throttle back medallic commemoration of routine things.

Medals for valor, excellence, campaigns - handshakes and well wishes for change of station.
legalleadtheway.bsky.social
I'm actually fascinated by the argument that reprogramming proc dollars to funds *ARMY*salaries is un-Constitutional... like, who has standing to assert it's ok to pay Space Force, Marines, Coasties, but not Soldiers?