Because the human rights chief has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1], whereas Hegseth and Trump do not. Furthermore, Hegseth has stated repeatedly that the US military should ignore rules of engagement (and has worked to strip legal oversight from the military), which lends credence to the findings of the UN investigation that the US acted recklessly and without regard to civilians in violation of international humanitarian law [2][3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volker_T%C3%BCrk

[2] US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth commented at a news conference on March 2, 2026, about “stupid rules of engagement,” suggesting that they may interfere with “fight[ing] to win.” These remarks are concerning in light of Hegseth’s actions in the past year that have weakened US military posts and mechanisms intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war. - https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/02/us-defense-secretarys-me...

[3] "We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters." - https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318...

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

> has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1]

This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

burden of proof is on one making statement, especially if he is passively-aggressively toxic.

Productive discussion would be if you go read that report before bringing it here, and tell what material evidence they have for that specific incident?

US picked some target through some classified protocol, what evidence states that there was some reckless in process?

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

We're discussing the article that summarizes the report's findings, but sure.

Please refer to the report [1] and read the following sections (they are too long to paste here):

- II (full section)

- IV.B.1 (full section)

- IV.B.2.88-89

- IV.B.2.95-96

- V.B (full section)

The report itself attributes its sources. If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding. Pre-strike imagery of the school is public.

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

This has to be a troll. You're literally replying in a comment thread where I've already summarized the material findings that you're asking for (it's from the article we're discussing). I then pasted links to the raw text of the report that support the summary but you refuse to read it, asking me again for a summary which I already posted? I've provided everything you've asked for; do you actually have a point or are you just trying to start a flamewar?

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

> I've already summarized the material findings

I asked about material evidence(I mentioned word "evidence" multiple times), not "findings", which is loaded term

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

That evidence is once again in the report which I linked and the statements of the DoD and Hegseth himself. If you want aerial imagery or the full text of the interviews, you'll have to obtain it yourself because it wasn't included in the advance version of the report.

I have a question for you: how do you know the moon is not made of cheese? What evidence do you have?

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

> the interviews

those interviews are opinions not evidence, to my knowledge there was no public statements of anyone directly involved into the target selection process in that case

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. If you'd like to learn more about the methodology, feel free to read the article or the report.

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

> There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law.

Its not about admission of guilt, but as I said multiple time about material evidence, which is missing in this case.

	▲	text0404 a day ago \| parent [-]
		No it isn't, you just refuse to read the report or any of the other links I've posted. They have a word for what you're doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning