Politics matters the most. There are a dozens of nuances about self defense, legit military targets, helplessness and more. All of that only strengthens political debates. It doesn’t answer any hard questions. Biden (and other Dems) said Trump killing Soleimani was a war crime. Was he correct?
That one is harder. Once we remove our laws on assassination, international law becomes trickier. If we believed he was in some way planning an attack on the US, it would be good. If it was for prior actions not with a conviction, it becomes more problematic.
Yamamoto was leading a war against the US and a valid target. People with more knowledge of Soleimani can debate the the differences and similarities of the two men. I do not have his resume implemented in my mind.
But, if he were clinging to rubble at sea...
I'll throw another hypothetical out there:
There are BAD guys, right? They are (allegedly) smuggling drugs into our country that are illegal. They know it's illegal, they don't care.
When you get to that level of risk / nonchalance about transporting a product that will likely result in someone dying, it's not hard to believe that these are the worst kind of people. Right?
If ending human life through drugs doesn't bother them, then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they have no problem with murder, rape, or a myriad of other crimes. Right?
So is it possible that it may be more than fentanyl they are smuggling?
Cocaine? Highly plausible.
Weapons? Don't see why not.
Human Trafficking? Definitely an option.
So when you blow up that boat, and then make another pass with the drone and see two people clinging to debris, are you 100% certain that you are taking out another narco-terrorist, or maybe you might be taking out the girl that had been handcuffed in the hold being brought to this country to be sold into prostitution.
Perhaps there is good reason to avoid the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.
Also of note, when you lose your boat and you are out in open water with only debris / life jacket keeping you afloat, the odds of you dying are still pretty freaking high. At best, you've got about 24-36 hours till you are dead from exposure / lack of drinking water alone. I'd hazard to guess that the narcos didn't have time to get an SOS off on the radio. Nobody from their side is going to be going out looking for them. So, the whole "They'll be able to go back and make more drugs and try again" argument is pretty much BS. If they beat the odds and are lucky enough to even get to shore alive, I'm pretty sure it would be the equivalent of a "finding Jesus" moment in their lives and they would strongly reconsider any future career in the illegal pharmaceutical field.
No, do not move the scenario to a war zone. We aren't at war with Venezuela; we've declared a particular group of people are terrorists, just like Al-Queda. That's a real difference. Keep it in place.Counter analogy/Devil's advocate:
We see Al-Queda members building a bomb in Yemen via drones. We have good intel that that bomb is going to be transported to a U.S. army base to blow people up, or civilians somewhere in U.S. control. We order a strike to kill the bomb makers and the building and bomb where they are located. First missile hits and blows up the bomb and building, but the drone footage shows two Al-Queda members crawling out of the wreckage. Can the drone operator fire another missile/bomb to kill the two remaining survivors?
Tougher situation. How do you decide? Based on the perceived evilness of the targets? Based on perceived danger of bombs v. drugs? Who gets to make that call and who can disobey the order?
I am not sure that is tougher. Move the scenario to a war zone. You blow up a bunker in WW2, 2 German soldiers escape the destroyed bunker. I believe they are still fair game.
The scenarios of being on flotsam or dangling from a parachute come from the concept of a defenseless combatant. If they are on ground and conscious, it may not fit the idea of defenseless. Now if they are pulled unconscious from rubble and are still unconscious on the ground, yes, that would probably be a war crime.
This is why I said the answer may be different if you are looking at international law vs. federal law. I think the Constitution gives the President powers and latitude when it comes to ordering covert ops (say, against terrorists) that don't have an analogous cutout in international law, which is mostly focused on war.
I'll throw another hypothetical out there:
There are BAD guys, right? They are (allegedly) smuggling drugs into our country that are illegal. They know it's illegal, they don't care.
When you get to that level of risk / nonchalance about transporting a product that will likely result in someone dying, it's not hard to believe that these are the worst kind of people. Right?
If ending human life through drugs doesn't bother them, then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they have no problem with murder, rape, or a myriad of other crimes. Right?
So is it possible that it may be more than fentanyl they are smuggling?
Cocaine? Highly plausible.
Weapons? Don't see why not.
Human Trafficking? Definitely an option.
So when you blow up that boat, and then make another pass with the drone and see two people clinging to debris, are you 100% certain that you are taking out another narco-terrorist, or maybe you might be taking out the girl that had been handcuffed in the hold being brought to this country to be sold into prostitution.
Perhaps there is good reason to avoid the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.
Also of note, when you lose your boat and you are out in open water with only debris / life jacket keeping you afloat, the odds of you dying are still pretty freaking high. At best, you've got about 24-36 hours till you are dead from exposure / lack of drinking water alone. I'd hazard to guess that the narcos didn't have time to get an SOS off on the radio. Nobody from their side is going to be going out looking for them. So, the whole "They'll be able to go back and make more drugs and try again" argument is pretty much BS. If they beat the odds and are lucky enough to even get to shore alive, I'm pretty sure it would be the equivalent of a "finding Jesus" moment in their lives and they would strongly reconsider any future career in the illegal pharmaceutical field.
They are bad, stipulated
But
Venezuela sends almost no fentanyl to the US. You can search that yourself.
Most of their cocaine goes to Africa to be sent to Europe. WSJ article
There is a headline on CNN right now talking about Rand Paul. Paul said the Coast Guard sent him a letter that 22%of vessels they interdict do not have drugs. Is our Intel on lethal attacks better than that 79% accuracy?
If those boats had smuggled humans on them, what happened to them when the boats were destroyed?
Why is boarding them and arresting anyone involved in illegal activity such a bad option? If we seize the crew, might we get Intel on where drugs, humans, weapons are going? Blown up people certainly don't talk.
He’s shamefully throwing the Admiral under the bus.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1995908525088797088?t=w8B-8j6E7S0nLFdWTuqTFg&s=19
Yeo. Hegseth’s is backing away from all responsibility.If orders were given in the Chain of command from CinC to operation commander to kill any survivors from the initial attack, is that a crime? Yes or no?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5627546-lawmakers-demand-answers-trump-venezuela-boat-strikes/
https://twitter.com/RyanSaavedra/status/1995708735256433056?t=f1r4jINJc_hpBPTqPiDNyw&s=19
So what's the story then? You agree we committed a war crime, but it was Admiral Bradley that did it and not Hegseth?
We don't know the full truth yet but if the NY Times is saying Hegseth didn't give that order it's probably safe to say he didn't.
They aren't just saying Hegseth didn't give the order. They are confirming that Bradley did.
IF they were helpless in the water, they’re shipwrecked and not legitimate targets. The charge under the UCMJ would be murder.matters
It matters for our own law and it matters in terms of practicalities.
I'm not saying it makes it better; I'm just saying it's a real difference.
Our own law, sure, it might. Though I suspect the UCMJ doesn't differentiate a peacetime action from a war.
But as to whether or not this is a war crime, it makes no difference at all. If an enemy is helpless, they aren't to be targeted. Which is why a boat still afloat matters to me. I think Geneva still recognizes a vessel as a legitimate target.
I cannot figure out how your scenario matters to Geneva. Aloha can answer about the code of military justice but I suspect it too won't matter.
He’s shamefully throwing the Admiral under the bus.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1995908525088797088?t=w8B-8j6E7S0nLFdWTuqTFg&s=19
He's playing games. Acting like he's supporting him but at the same time pointing his finger at him.
He was killed under the post-9/11 use of force authorization from Congress. Iran was responsible many American deaths in Iraq. Not a war crime and I don’t recall anyone seriously making that accusation.Politics matters the most. There are a dozens of nuances about self defense, legit military targets, helplessness and more. All of that only strengthens political debates. It doesn’t answer any hard questions. Biden (and other Dems) said Trump killing Soleimani was a war crime. Was he correct?
He doesn't seem to mention that the fishing boats targeted, even if equipped with the largest possible fuel tanks, could not possibly reach US soil without refueling 10 or more times. He also doesn't seem to mention any evidence whatsoever that these fishing boats were trafficking fentanyl (as widely alleged), which doesn't come from Venezuela in the first place, or any other drug.
One would like to assume that we have capable intelligence, but the plan of operations seems to be to claim whatever the King demands that you claim, facts be damned.
For someone who is always tooting their own horn about how smart you think you are, you sure are a dunce. Is the one & only option for drugs to enter into the US on a boat that comes directly from the point of origin? Jeebus…
He’s shamefully throwing the Admiral under the bus.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1995908525088797088?t=w8B-8j6E7S0nLFdWTuqTFg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1995643490152128919?t=kn6AH9HhAEoa3LtsUNucXw&s=19
I don’t understand. Are you saying a congressional use of force authorization can legalize a war crime?
Saying it’s not at all the same. You defended it so go ahead and explain your defense.I don’t understand. Are you saying a congressional use of force authorization can legalize a war crime?
There is no congressional authorization of war. We’re blowing up boats of suspected criminals and killing the crews. They won’t release the legal opinion they’re relying on, but it’s clear it’s based on declaring the criminals narco-terrorists and probably stretching the AUF to cover it. Even if we accept that the initial strikes are lawful attacking survivors in the water is not. They’re an expressly protected in the shipwrecked category and responsibility switches to aiding them, not killing them. It’s either a war crime if we’re actually at war and murder under the UCMJ if not. Hegseth says he didn’t give what amounts to a “no quarter” order because that is also unlawful and he’s backing away from responsibility and throwing the Admiral under the bus.
It is encouraging that so many Republicans in Congress are very concerned about the strikes and intend to do a thorough investigation. Once that gets going we’ll see MAGA attacking everyone involved as Democraps, RINOs and Never-Trumpers. They’ll add them to their ever growing enemies list rather than cheering for finding the truth - whatever it ultimately turns out to be.
Hegseth says he didn’t give what amounts to a “no quarter” order because that is also unlawful and he’s backing away from responsibility and throwing the Admiral under the bus.
If Hegseth didn’t issue the order, what is he backing away from? I heard Hegseth defend the Admiral and he backs him. That doesn’t sound like throwing him under the bus.
I heard a Democrat claim we “machine gunned” survivors in the water. Is that what you are hearing from your pentagon friends? I would have a big problem with that. Or is the Democrats lying?
Latest Post: 2026-27 Men's Basketball Roster/Depth Chart + '27 Commits Our newest member: C Probert Recent Posts Unread Posts
