Page 1075 of the DOD's Law of War manual, under the section that talks about refusing illegal orders, directly uses the example that "firing upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal."

ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/d...

The concept of there being evil people was pretty much gotten rid of when modern psychology started to become prominent. In many cases, what used to be evil, is simply biological imbalances that can be managed w medication. But w these, I'm inclined to believe they fit the def of being evil to a T 😐

Got it yet. Russia are getting rid of people they don't want. Exactly what Trump will do with the DOGE info if he starts up with Venezuela. He'll introduce conscription and send undesirables to the front.

To Sacks' credit, he acknowledged that he should divest some of these holdings because they were AI co's.

But we examined hundreds of other Sacks' investments that will likely benefit from his AI role. On his waiver, he classified these stakes as "SaaS" or "hardware," despite clear AI connections.

And if you actually read the footnotes on the waiver, its unclear when (or even if) Sacks sold some of these investments in AI companies. So he could have been holding onto shares of Amazon, Meta and xAI while influencing AI policy and decision-making.

Even when Sacks said he was going to divest something, those divestments were listed as "pending."

Remember, that he was disclosing this stuff in March, two months after taking on his White House role and as the administration was doing deals to potentially benefit the AI industry.

When we started looking at the AI waiver, we realized that they provided an incomplete picture of Sacks' financial interests. There were no values on the stakes he disclosed. And statements like he has "initiated or completed divestment of over 99% of your holdings" were not backed up in any way.

The waivers are an acknowledgement by the WH counsel that Sacks could be conflicted. But they give him permission to hold onto his investments because, the WH argues, the investments are insignificant in the grand scheme of his net worth, AND his value as an advisor outweighs any potential conflict

We combed through Sacks' White House ethics waivers. The WH granted him two waivers in March: one for AI and one for crypto.

Let's take a deeper look at his AI ethics waiver, which we've put online for everyone to see here: www.nytimes.com/interactive/...