I think ultimately it’s going to be up the courts but I think using your military to attack defenseless civilians outside your borders who present no threat might be a war crime.
Yeah, I suppose so. I bet it won’t end up in court though.
I just consider it “Literally getting away with murder”.
Drug courier boats are well armed and the drugs are certainly a threat.
Mind you- if they knew there were survivors on that one boat, that is indeed a war crime. Three nazis were executed for doing that same thing.
If the Dems get a majority in the House in 2026, there will be hearings on this, I bet. But no criminal trials.
Technically, true. That said, there’s general acceptance that the Executive has latitude to engage in hostile action, prior to official authorization by Congress or else we wouldn’t be able to deal with surprise attacks and the like. Quite a significant amount of US military action, over the last century, has fallen under that heading so you’d basically need to reclassify quite a lot of activity as murder that we’re all quite happily accepting as regular military conflict, to make the argument.
I feel like I should note that we’ve got different descriptions of the event, at the moment. One side is saying that the people were on the boat, sending radio signals. The other is saying that they were barely floating on wreckage and at risk of drowning.
The media should be asking for the video footage to be released. I’m a bit skeptical of the honesty of leakers on both sides, on this one.
Today is a new day so there is a new version. This one from several lawmakers who saw the video.
No radios or phones. Just a floating wrecked hull of a boat with two men trying to stay on it. The survivors were waving (guess the intent). No other boats in the area.
The admirals reasoning, based on Trumps legal theory, is the cocaine is the (military) objective. I sunk the cocaine that might have been floating in the hull. The men were unfortunate collateral damage.
And fight piracy= always legal. And nations have gotten over that whole ‘declare war” thing now, but Congress did declare a war on drugs and a war on terrorism.
And others saying they didnt see any survivors at all before the follow up attacks were launched, due to “fog of war”.
Not to mention the one congresscritter’s version “what I saw was they were trying to right the boat, collect the drugs, continue on their way…”
If that is true, then the USA needs to stop buying the cheap brand of missiles…
The boats did not attack the US or US assets or demonstrate intent to attack the US with those arms. It’s not illegal to be armed at sea. It is debatable whether those drugs were a threat to the US. The administration has presented no evidence, and the boats certainly did not have the capability of reaching the US. The claim by the administration that these drug dealers are “narco terrorists” endangering the US is a smokescreen for politically-motivated action against Venezuela. If they were serious about drug threats to the US they would be focusing on Mexico and Colombia. Venezuela is a bit player.
I don’t know, after watching Mythbusters and learning more about the battlefield (2nd hand), I feel like the general perception of the lethality and destructiveness of modern weapons is exaggerated relative to the reality.
Your average bomb has a spherical blast effect. The dropoff in impact of anything with a spherical effect is cubic. If you imagine a magnet and how it will pick up something if something of equal mass when you nearly touch the two items together, but get a few inches between and it’s like there’s no magnet at all. That’s the problem that explosives are dealing with.
Not to mention that, in this case, you’re probably shooting something designed to go through l thick ayers of metal, into an object mostly made of wood and fiberglass. It might just go through, making a hole a few inches big.
Unless the Navy are using air burst weapons to take out the boats, and the crews.
And if the magnet gets wet, you might as well toss it.
Basically, there are two types of missiles a drone would have: 1) anti person - lots of shrapnel to kill people; 2) anti-boat/vehicle - no shrapnel, but big hole in the boat.
Knowing this can also help determine a persons intent on whether they meant to kill a person or destroy the drugs.
Since the videos we’ve seen show what looks like a fireball engulfing the boats, then, it would be the second kind?
Dunno. Just theory on my end.
Late: fuel might cause a fireball
Yes, I’d assume a round penetrating the fuel tank would spark off a big-ass fire, and if it went kablooie when it ignited it would blow apart the boat and damage any human being within range.
I do wonder whether the second, kill shot was via strafing rather than wasting a higher-grade weapon.
For the Sep 2 attack, there is testimony there was 4 shots. Round of 2….30 mins…another round of 2. Or maybe it was just 1….1.
Either way, these drones only shoot missiles, sometimes bombs. No bullets/strafing.
All good questions for Congress to get into intent of their mission. Sink the boat/cocaine or kill combatants; or both. The weapons loaded beforehand can inform that.
Still, in the discussion of liability - what is the law about malfeasance on the high seas (international waters)? I assume I cannot go to country A and live with impunity if all I did was kill people and destroy boats from countries B and C while on the high seas? It was my impression this is what the law of piracy was all about.
You’re right in thinking there’s nowhere to hide from murder. There’s no zones without jurisdiction to try you for that. And you’re right that piracy has a universal jurisdiction aspect - all international waters.
In your scenario, you’d be subject to the domestic murder laws of country A, B, and C. It would not be piracy (no indication you’re on a ship nor your motives).
In the drone strikes, it’s also not piracy. Also not ship vs ship, but even if we said seals operating a drone from a ship counted as ship vs ship, the US are the alleged pirates in this scenario. For piracy law to apply, the pirates cannot be state actors and must be private actors. There are plenty of discussions on what laws still apply but I’d say US law and Venezuela.
Late:The main issue with piracy is they were not flagged ships (registered), so no country could claim them. To prevent that, they applied to concept of universal jurisdiction since piracy was everyone’s problem. But a pirate is a very specific thing and doesn’t just apply to anything in international waters.
Somewhere I got the idea the fire came from a C-130 gunship.
My smart alec comment” During the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, the USAAF machine gunned thousands of survivors from Japanese troop transport ships.
That was bad, but somewhat justified by the fact they would have been quickly landed as reinforcements. per wiki “This was later justified on the grounds that rescued servicemen would have been rapidly landed at their military destination and promptly returned to active service”.
Not so in the case of the U boat commander killing sailors adrift in a lifeboat from a ship they had just sunk. There is a fine line, and while i can not entirely justify what the Allies (other forces joined in) doing what they did, it is understandable.