Speaker 1: I'm Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven AM. It's
Speaker 1: been a war of shifting deadlines for President Trump, and
Speaker 1: his third one expires this morning. The President's demanding Iran
Speaker 1: reopen this strait of hor Moos or the US will
Speaker 1: strike every bridge and power plan in the country. Destroy
Speaker 1: all this, and you destroy Iran Today. Rachel Van Lendingham,
Speaker 1: a former military lawyer in the US Air Force, on
Speaker 1: Trump's case for targeting civilian infrastructure and what's it all
Speaker 1: mean for international law. It's Wednesday, April eight.
Speaker 2: US President Donald Trump has used abuse of language to
Speaker 2: call in Iran to let ships through the street.
Speaker 3: Off her moves as he threw the children are watching.
Speaker 3: We warned the president did not use polite language.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 3: Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day, all
Speaker 3: wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing
Speaker 3: like it. Open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or
Speaker 3: you'll be living in hell.
Speaker 1: Just watch, Rachel, when Donald Trump made this threat to
Speaker 1: hit each and every one of Iran's power plants, what
Speaker 1: did you think of that? Was that just another empty
Speaker 1: threat from Trump? Or is this something that the US
Speaker 1: will actually do?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 4: I sure hope they won't it because they'd be committing
Speaker 4: war crimes for which there are no statute of limitations
Speaker 4: and there's universal jurisdiction. It did seem to be more
Speaker 4: than just an idle threat because the press briefing that
Speaker 4: he gave that was ostensibly focused on the rescue, a
Speaker 4: successful rescue mission of a downed pilot, But during the
Speaker 4: question answer session he made it very clear that.
Speaker 5: Every bridge in Iran will be decimated by twelve o'clock
Speaker 5: tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be
Speaker 5: out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again.
Speaker 6: I mean complete demolition.
Speaker 4: And then he made comments about you know, bombing back
Speaker 4: to the Stone Age and that they'd be set back
Speaker 4: for one hundred years, et cetera.
Speaker 5: Do I want to do that note? Do I want
Speaker 5: to destroy their infrastructure? No, it will take them one
Speaker 5: hundred years to rebuild.
Speaker 4: That is not just empty rhetoric. That is a threat
Speaker 4: to engage in a war crime. That's technically called the
Speaker 4: war crime of indiscriminate attack. So we don't just go
Speaker 4: after every single bridge and every single power plant.
Speaker 6: We have to show that. Oh, well, first we're.
Speaker 4: Going to determine whether or not it's what we call
Speaker 4: a lawful military objective. But fundamentally, the threat to destroy
Speaker 4: and he didn't say disabled, he said he was going
Speaker 4: to destroy each and every bridge in Iran, each and
Speaker 4: every power plant in Iran, is threatening to commit the
Speaker 4: war crime of indiscriminate attack. Second, it is impermissible to
Speaker 4: intimidate the civilian population during time of war by violence
Speaker 4: or reasonably foreseeable consequences of President Trump threatening total warfare
Speaker 4: against Iran by destroying every bridge and every power plant
Speaker 4: is that the civilian population will be terrified.
Speaker 6: Why, you need electricity to live in the modern world.
Speaker 4: You need electricity to run hospitals, you need electricity to
Speaker 4: purify your water, and so it's really horrific what he's
Speaker 4: actually threatened to do.
Speaker 1: So, Rachel, what are the justifications that the US could
Speaker 1: use if it wanted to go after these power plans,
Speaker 1: Because it's not the first time that we've seen civilian
Speaker 1: infrastructure struck during a war, for example Gaza and Ukraine,
Speaker 1: So they must be some way that countries are trying
Speaker 1: to justify it.
Speaker 4: Well, I definitely wouldn't use Gaza as a role model
Speaker 4: for how to abide by the law of arm conflict,
Speaker 4: and I wouldn't use Russia attacking electrical grids in Ukraine
Speaker 4: as a paragon of virtue. Either in the United States
Speaker 4: has wrongly condemned Russia for war crimes.
Speaker 7: There have been numerous credible reports of hospitals, schools, theaters,
Speaker 7: et cetera being intentionally attacked. The United Nations and other
Speaker 7: credible observers have confirmed hundreds of civilian deaths, and we
Speaker 7: believe that the exact civilian death told will be in
Speaker 7: the thousands.
Speaker 4: However, individual bridges, individual power plants, despite being originally civilian objects,
Speaker 4: can become a lawful military objective.
Speaker 8: A key bridge Niete Ran was among the targets hit.
Speaker 8: Mister Trump posted a video of its destruction, urging Iran
Speaker 8: to agree a CEASEFI ideal before it's too late.
Speaker 6: It's a two step process.
Speaker 4: It's typically by either their current or intended use, not
Speaker 4: speculative hypothetical. Maybe the Iranians will use this power plant
Speaker 4: eventually someday to produce energy to fuel a particular weapons
Speaker 4: production company. No, it's not speculative, it's intended use. We
Speaker 4: have to have facts to show they intend to use it.
Speaker 4: Second of all, the attack right the strike here, the
Speaker 4: destruction that President Trump has promised has to provide a
Speaker 4: definite military advantage.
Speaker 6: That's not the end of the analysis.
Speaker 4: If a power plant's only providing electricity to a military base,
Speaker 4: it's an easy military, lawful military objective take it out.
Speaker 6: But that's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 4: We're talking about these power plants to produce electricity for
Speaker 4: that is civilian infrastructure, for civilian cities, civilian home civilian hospitals.
Speaker 4: The United States is required to take all feasible precautions
Speaker 4: to mitigate the impact of that military strike, that action
Speaker 4: on civilians. Then the last question becomes, Okay, even using
Speaker 4: all feasible precautions and attack, we have to consider whether
Speaker 4: or not that civilian harm is excessive compared to the
Speaker 4: direct and concrete military advantage to be gained by taking
Speaker 4: out that power grid. And President Trump ignor that distinction
Speaker 4: completely is rejecting the entire premise of the law of war,
Speaker 4: which forms the moral and legal foundation for how Americans
Speaker 4: and our allies fight. We are no better than the
Speaker 4: rogue state of Iran or Russia if we engage in
Speaker 4: what President Trump is said we're going to engage in.
Speaker 1: So Rightchel right now, if you're a military commander or
Speaker 1: a military lawyer and you've got the president saying all
Speaker 1: of these things, what position are you left in.
Speaker 4: You're left in the position that you have to obey
Speaker 4: lawful orders, and you have a legal duty and absolute
Speaker 4: legal duty to disobey patently manifestly unlawful orders. And if
Speaker 4: President Trump truly gives an order that says take out
Speaker 4: all the power plants and all the bridges, the military
Speaker 4: has an obligation to disobey that order. The smart military
Speaker 4: commander giving Trump's mercurial and rather deranged behavior, would be yes, sir,
Speaker 4: hey boss, We've got this terrific target set of a
Speaker 4: one hundred bridges and power plants that we have determined
Speaker 4: meet the high hurdle. They contribute to military action, they
Speaker 4: offer a military advantage by destroying them. And it's definitely
Speaker 4: not going to be all the bridges and power plants.
Speaker 4: And in Iran, right, it can't just be oh to
Speaker 4: weaken the morale of the civilian population because you're not
Speaker 4: allowed to target the civilian population. It cannot just be
Speaker 4: weakened the morale of the regime because where's the military
Speaker 4: action there. There has to be a military nexus. So
Speaker 4: by distilling his order right through the law of war,
Speaker 4: the law of arm conflict, they can get to lawful
Speaker 4: military objectives, and it's incumbent upon them to actually do so.
Speaker 6: Otherwise they are.
Speaker 4: Guilty of war crimes and there are no statute of
Speaker 4: limitations for those. And I don't think President Trump can
Speaker 4: part an absolute everybody within the Apartment defense sets that
Speaker 4: would be involved in these.
Speaker 6: Strikes coming up.
Speaker 1: Will Trump's listen to the Loyes Rachel If we could
Speaker 1: take a step back for a moment, as a military lawyer,
Speaker 1: do you think that this war was even legal in
Speaker 1: the first place.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Under the framework of international law that's called the USAID
Speaker 4: bellum that governs the resort to the use of force
Speaker 4: on the global stage by states encapsulated in the United
Speaker 4: Nations Charter, the United States did not face an imminent
Speaker 4: threat of armed attack by Iran that would trigger its
Speaker 4: Article fifty one right on Article fifty one in the
Speaker 4: United Nations Charter to engage in force and self defense,
Speaker 4: and there was no United Nations Security Council resolution obviously
Speaker 4: authorizing this. The best argument the United States could make
Speaker 4: is that that it simply joined an ongoing international arm conflict,
Speaker 4: an already ongoing war between Iran and Israel, and so
Speaker 4: we joined an allied But I don't buy that argument.
Speaker 4: There are no objective indications that there were ongoing hostilities,
Speaker 4: so I do think this is.
Speaker 6: A war of choice.
Speaker 4: However, the law of war doesn't care who started the war,
Speaker 4: who's the aggressor, and who's not, because its purpose is
Speaker 4: to minimize humans suffering and war, starting with civilians for us,
Speaker 4: but also starting with those service members that are fighting
Speaker 4: for their countries.
Speaker 1: Rachel, do you think that anyone in the Pentagon right
Speaker 1: now is really sitting back and assessing the legality of
Speaker 1: these strikes.
Speaker 4: Yes, because we have military lawyers and I was one
Speaker 4: for a long time whose job is to assess strike packages.
Speaker 4: The Geneva Conventions require that commanders have legal advisors available
Speaker 4: to them and opening on things like target packages. Despite
Speaker 4: the fact that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the
Speaker 4: top military lawyers of the services.
Speaker 5: Ultimately, I want the best possible lawyers in each service
Speaker 5: to provide the best possible recommendations, no matter what, to
Speaker 5: lawful orders that are given.
Speaker 6: And we didn't think those particular positions.
Speaker 9: Were well suited and so we're looking.
Speaker 6: For the best.
Speaker 4: He did that soon after taking office, thereby sending a
Speaker 4: message saying that you know, I don't want obstacles in
Speaker 4: my way.
Speaker 6: I don't want any roadblocks. Well, guess what the law
Speaker 6: is a roadblock?
Speaker 1: Do you think that Trump will pay any attention to
Speaker 1: what they come up with, legal or not legal? Oh,
Speaker 1: He's more likely to just go ahead and do what
Speaker 1: he wants.
Speaker 4: Well. Trump has his psycho fans around them, including those
Speaker 4: at the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel,
Speaker 4: who already wrote a legal memo, a laughable legal memo
Speaker 4: that's classified. Still hasn't been released, but parts of it
Speaker 4: have been discussed in the open media, saying that it's
Speaker 4: lawful to kill civilians, to kill alleged drug smugglers outside
Speaker 4: of the time of war. But those military lawyers don't
Speaker 4: have access to the president. Usually the military lawyers advising
Speaker 4: their commanders. I'm the chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff,
Speaker 4: and I also don't have much faith in guess he
Speaker 4: was put in that position because he President Trump thinks
Speaker 4: he's pliing. He's also not in the direct chain of command.
Speaker 4: He's not passing on orders. But I'm hoping that his
Speaker 4: lawyers are telling him, sir, we've got to be very
Speaker 4: very careful about this, and not simply because it's the law.
Speaker 4: We don't follow the law because of law sake. We
Speaker 4: follow the law because it keeps our service members moral
Speaker 4: compasses on true north we tell them they're going to
Speaker 4: do awful things in war. We're going to order you
Speaker 4: to do awful things and war. But they're lawful and
Speaker 4: they're moral because the law has already taken into account
Speaker 4: this balance between going after military targets, military objectives and
Speaker 4: minimizing the impact on civilians.
Speaker 1: So, Rachel, if the deadline passes, the strait of Hall
Speaker 1: moves isn't reopened, the strikes are carried out, and then
Speaker 1: down the track later on it's investigated. What would that
Speaker 1: mean for the people who gave the orders and also
Speaker 1: the soldiers and commanders at the end of the day
Speaker 1: who have to carry them out.
Speaker 4: I mean, the president has immunity because of the US
Speaker 4: Supreme Court's decision from a few years ago that gives
Speaker 4: some pretty total immunity for official acts. President Trump will
Speaker 4: probably pardon Secretary Hegstath and give a prospective pardon, but
Speaker 4: for those military members who received manifestly unlawful orders.
Speaker 6: Clearly unlawful orders.
Speaker 4: Directing that every single power plant and every single bridge
Speaker 4: in Iran be destroyed is a manifestly, patently unlawful order.
Speaker 4: That means that that commander that does not disobey that
Speaker 4: order is guilty of that war crime, of indiscriminate attack
Speaker 4: or else. There's universal jurisdiction under the Geneva Conventions, meaning
Speaker 4: a country like Germany could draft war crime charges against
Speaker 4: any of these members in the future. There is no
Speaker 4: statue to limitations, including criminal punishment if warranted by the facts,
Speaker 4: so it's not just a country should do this or
Speaker 4: actually obligated to bring war criminals to account.
Speaker 1: What do you think all of this says about the
Speaker 1: state of international lule and how countries regarded, how the
Speaker 1: US regards it, and how healthy it is not only
Speaker 1: in the US but around the world right now.
Speaker 4: I think the international order that was set up after
Speaker 4: World War Two, largely in part to prevent a World
Speaker 4: War III, is in danger of severe weakening and erosion,
Speaker 4: and not only the disregard for the using force to
Speaker 4: try to get what you want. That's dangerous enough as
Speaker 4: it is, But then the threats by a sitting of
Speaker 4: the United States President to engage in total warfare. So
Speaker 4: today I see a rejection of international law. If we
Speaker 4: have a Secretary of Defense that says, you know, we're
Speaker 4: not going to fight by stupid rules of engagement.
Speaker 9: We fight worse to win, not to defend. We unleash
Speaker 9: overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't
Speaker 9: fight with stupid rules of engagement tie the hands of
Speaker 9: our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies
Speaker 9: of our country.
Speaker 6: Really, are we targeting children?
Speaker 8: Now?
Speaker 6: Are we targeting civilians?
Speaker 4: Do we not care about the fundamental premise of the
Speaker 4: law of war that we're going to fight honorably and
Speaker 4: only go after military objectives and military personnel for say,
Speaker 4: none of that matters. Well, then we are no better
Speaker 4: than Iran, We are no better than Russia. And the
Speaker 4: United States is entering into and leading the entry into dark,
Speaker 4: dark times.
Speaker 6: And that's frightening.
Speaker 1: Rachel, thanks so much for talking to us today.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, one of Australia's most decorated soldiers,
Speaker 1: Ben Robert Smith, has been taken into custody over the
Speaker 1: alleged motives of unarmed Afghan civilians. Robert Smith was arrested
Speaker 1: Sydney Domestic Airport yesterday and is expected to be charged
Speaker 1: with five counts of war crime murder following a joint
Speaker 1: investigation by the Office of the Special Investigator and the
Speaker 1: Australian Federal Police. It follows mister Robert Smith's failed defamation
Speaker 1: case against nine newspapers, in which the Federal Court found,
Speaker 1: on the balance of probabilities that he was involved in
Speaker 1: the murder of four unarmed men. No criminal findings were
Speaker 1: made and mister Robert Smith has always maintained his innocence.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump has again lashed out of Australia for
Speaker 1: refusing to back US military action against Iran. The U
Speaker 1: S President has accused several allies of benefiting from US
Speaker 1: protection while failing to return the favor, naming Australia alongside
Speaker 1: Japan and South Korea. When asked precisely what Australia had
Speaker 1: failed to provide, the US Prime Minister Anthony Alberizi said
Speaker 1: that wasn't a question for him to answer, but stated
Speaker 1: he wants to see a de escalation in the co inflict.
Speaker 2: I think it's very clear that any further escalation needs
Speaker 2: to be outlined what the objective is. So we've called consistently.
Speaker 2: We haven't changed our position of calling for de escalation.
Speaker 1: I'm Nicole Johnston. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.