U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Double Tap strike scrutiny

[Duke Mu]

It’s over. Move on to your new “Trump bad” scandal that’s going to bring down his Presidency.

According to the Daily Mail, Admiral Bradley is testifying to this to Congress as we speak (Raddatz has good sources). Bradley was conducting the mission and He concluded that the two survivors were radioing for back up and attempting to salvage the cargo. Thus, the battle was not completed. You'll now have to call one of the most respected Admirals in the Navy a liar and a hack for covering up for Trump and Hegseth.

Did you just call that a "battle?" lol

 

[4thgenheel]

Somehow the first strike killed 9 people but enough of the boat remained intact that the 2 survivors that were blown overboard climbed back in and then decided they should start repacking this incredibly durable boat with the drugs that got blasted into the sea by a missile that did not cause major damage to the boat but also killed 9 guys, all while knowing the armed drone that just exploded them is still watching nearby.

 

[ChileG]

ABC reporting the two “survivors” on the boat were still actively engaged in the battle. Also, terrorists were in radio communication with other boats. During the raid, a JAG officer was advising the admiral. This according to Martha Raddatz. My guess this came from Admiral Bradley’s closed door testimony.

Case closed (as I predicted this am).

A lot of this raises questions:

1. The boat was destroyed but the radio still worked?
2. “Hey, we’re just got blown up and most of us are dead, would you mind coming out here to pick us and the cargo (which also survived the missile attack)?
“Sure, we’ll be right there as we are pretty sure it’s safe now.”
3. Hey, they are calling for backup, should we wait for them and use the opportunity to kill more “terrorists?”
Nah, let’s just kill these two floating in the water and call it a day. It’s almost lunchtime.

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

The most important pull quote from that article:

A broad range of legal experts reject the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s claim that this is an armed conflict. They say that there is no armed conflict, that crews of boats suspected of smuggling drugs are civilians, not combatants, and that Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth have been giving illegal orders to commit murder.

Don't fall into the trap of debating whether the rules of war were followed. It doesn't matter, because the rules of war do not apply here. This is just plain old garden variety murder we are witnessing.

Agree with most of this but disagree that discussing whether this is a war crime is a trap.

I think the discussions should go that this is murder but even if you accept that these were combatants it would be a war crime. Saying it is doubly wrong is not falling into a trap IMO.

 

[Ddseddse]

Agree with most of this but disagree that discussing whether this is a war crime is a trap.

I think the discussions should go that this is murder but even if you accept that these were combatants it would be a war crime. Saying it is doubly wrong is not falling into a trap IMO.

The trap lies in tactically agreeing to ignore the planning and execution of 81 of the 83 murders committed by agreeing to play the game "let's talk about what's legal under the rules of war". Only two of those murders were war crimes if we tacitly agree that these strikes were conducted under the rules of war (spoiler alert: None of them were).

 

[evrheel]

Explosive report reveals Hegseth's pre-approved order ahead of strike on boat survivors

An explosive new report Wednesday night undercut Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempt to distance himself from an order to kill two survivors clinging to a boat following a strike on an alleged drug boat.The Trump administration's strategy for drug interdiction has come under intense...

www.rawstory.com

After the first strike on Sept. 2, two survivors emerged, and one radioed for assistance, the officials said. Bradley, apparently acting on Hegseth's orders, promptly ordered a follow-up strike to kill the survivors, thinking that a second boat could retrieve the survivors and any drugs that weren't destroyed.

 

[duluoz]

Yes I think we all understand the concept of the trap. But nobody is falling for it, as evidenced by the WaPo reporting (and his interview on The Daily yesterday)… and it doesn’t mean anyone has fallen for the trap just because they’re also covering all bases as these clowns are scrambling to reframe the events.

 

[Ddseddse]

Explosive report reveals Hegseth's pre-approved order ahead of strike on boat survivors

An explosive new report Wednesday night undercut Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempt to distance himself from an order to kill two survivors clinging to a boat following a strike on an alleged drug boat.The Trump administration's strategy for drug interdiction has come under intense...

www.rawstory.com

The original reporting is in the NYT gift link NYC posted on page 47 of this thread.

If story holds up that one of the survivors used a radio, the predetermination that the usage of a radio was a "combat act" will become significant. It will likely provide legal cover for the seal team 6 member(s) who pushed the button on the second strike. I don't think it's reasonable to ask a rank and file military member to on-the-spot adjudicate for themselves if using a radio is or is not a "combat action", once they've been told by superior it is, I would say they are immunized from executing a "clearly illegal" order.

That's not to say the order was legal, it was not (spoiler alert. using a radio to call for rescue is not a "combat action"), it is only to say that it wasn't a case where the person executing the order should have known it was an illegal order (once they had been assured by superiors that the target was engaged in a "combat action").

And of course all of that presupposed this was an armed conflict, which it was not. So with all that being said the people who planned and ordered all of these strikes are still liable for murder.

But what this new information tells us (if it all proves out to be as reported) is that the rank and file service members who carried out the second strike are not likely legally liable for executing an order they knew was illegal. Which, honestly is a good outcome (for the service members, not for the Venezuelan mariners), because those service members are in a very untenable position as it is. If, in the moment, they were being told it was a legal action under the rules of war by their superiors they shouldn't be held liable. At least in my opinion, I guess you could argue they should have had the sense to know what was what just from the facts on the ground, but in this highly specific scenario, I think giving the benefit of the doubt to the service members is the right call here.

Those who planned the attacks, ordered them, and made the determination that using a radio in this scenario was a "combat action"? Well, those guys are in a world of hurt.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

Agree with most of this but disagree that discussing whether this is a war crime is a trap.

This is true. I've been guilty of that. I think it's in part two factors. One is a method of proof -- i.e. even assuming that you're right that this was a combat action, it is still illegal. That is the trap.

The second reason is we instinctively reach for modifier adjectives to distinguish the truly noxious content from all the other criminality in the administration. to say Hegseth is a criminal is to say what is true for all of them, especially the CIC. So we reach for war criminal to distinguish from, say, Bill Pulte.

 

[superrific]

Worth remembering Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed piece in the Times calling for the military to quell unrest in June 2020.

It's also worth noting that in fact you wouldn't strike the boat again if "the terrorists" were still alive. That's the obviously illegal part. That's especially true since here they are not terrorists. The claim that they were trying to save their drugs is not "staying in the fight" -- not only because there was actually no "fight" in any meaningful sense (and certainly in no legal sense), but also because the actions are indistinguishable from trying to save themselves. I mean, the idea that tipping over a boat that was capsized is anything more than self-preservation is laughable on its face.

Anyone who doubts that these people are fascists merely need to read what Cotton wrote and have a bit of self-reflection.

 

[Bobfripp]

Oh, and what a fight it was! Some drug runners in a small boat, armed with what? AK-47s, at best? Against an F-35 firing air-to-ground missiles from miles away, well out of sight of the drug runners.

 

[superrific]

The original reporting is in the NYT gift link NYC posted on page 47 of this thread.

If story holds up that one of the survivors used a radio, the predetermination that the usage of a radio was a "combat act" will become significant. It will likely provide legal cover for the seal team 6 member(s) who pushed the button on the second strike. I don't think it's reasonable to ask a rank and file military member to on-the-spot adjudicate for themselves if using a radio is or is not a "combat action", once they've been told by superior it is, I would say they are immunized from executing a "clearly illegal" order.

That's not to say the order was legal, it was not (spoiler alert. using a radio to call for rescue is not a "combat action"), it is only to say that it wasn't a case where the person executing the order should have known it was an illegal order (once they had been assured by superiors that the target was engaged in a "combat action").

And of course all of that presupposed this was an armed conflict, which it was not. So with all that being said the people who planned and ordered all of these strikes are still liable for murder.

But what this new information tells us (if it all proves out to be as reported) is that the rank and file service members who carried out the second strike are not likely legally liable for executing an order they knew was illegal. Which, honestly is a good outcome (for the service members, not for the Venezuelan mariners), because those service members are in a very untenable position as it is. If, in the moment, they were being told it was a legal action under the rules of war by their superiors they shouldn't be held liable. At least in my opinion, I guess you could argue they should have had the sense to know what was what just from the facts on the ground, but in this highly specific scenario, I think giving the benefit of the doubt to the service members is the right call here.

Those who planned the attacks, ordered them, and made the determination that using a radio in this scenario was a "combat action"? Well, those guys are in a world of hurt.

I disagree with the conclusion of this thoughtful analysis. I say this as someone with no real experience with the military, but I have to think the airmen would definitely know that "using a radio" is not a combat action.

I'd say the better question -- which is not entirely distinct from your analysis, thought differently focused -- is what the airmen were told. We don't know anything about what they were told as the nature of the mission. For all we know, they were told this was a heavily armed boat with SAM capabilities and that the radio calls were directing an actual armed defense. If they were lied to, or misled, then they can avoid liability. If they were told that it is legal to kill people whose boats capsized because they were using a radio, then they should not be let off the hook. Maybe you could downgrade the offense to manslaughter or something like that, but I do not believe that, if they knew the actual facts, they would reasonably have thought it was legal.

Again, I emphasize that I have no relevant experience. But let's take another example: My Lai. Would it have changed the nature of the soldiers' actions if there was a JAG there telling them, "it's legal to kill anyone helping the VC, because they are combatants"? I do not think so. I think they knew it was wrong and illegal and they did it anyway. Likewise, the opinion of OLC (John Yoo) did not and should not have immunized the conduct at Abu Ghraib.

 

[Gmonet]

Dumb narcos had to be killed because they weren't smart enough to just drown. Idiots.

 

[superrific]

Thing is...they will all get a pardon from Trump.

Heck I'd expect a preemptive pardon from Trump any day now.

Pardons, though, do not prevent extradition.

 

[dukeman92]

 

[bassydude77]

Lost in the back and forth on the double tap, is whether or not the first "tap" was legal?

 

[superrific]

It’s over. Move on to your new “Trump bad” scandal that’s going to bring down his Presidency.

Do you have any inkling of WHY these laws matter? This isn't about taking out Trump. This is about protecting American service members who might find themselves in harm's way.

The Geneva conventions were signed after WWII, and they were substantially motivated by the experience from the Eastern Front. The Nazis treated POWs from the Soviet Union particularly poorly. Thus did the Soviets treat Nazi prisoners terribly (not as terribly from what I understand, but that's not really here or there). And it became a tit-for-tat, with the wounded or captured soldiers suffering.

The reason that everyone signed the Geneva Convention wasn't magnanimity. There was still plenty of anger toward Axis powers who did stuff like the Bataan Death March, to say nothing of many of the larger crimes. It was because everyone recognized that having laws of war would be good for them. It's not hard to treat POWs humanely. Doing so encourages reciprocity.

When the US starts executing people in boats in international waters, far from the US, on the flimsiest of excuses -- and then comes back to make sure everyone is dead -- what do you think is going to happen if American soldiers get stranded. If a US plane goes down in the next mission and there are airmen in the water, what do you think Venezuela or Colombia will do? I think they will summarily execute them, as well they should given what the US has done. They would no longer feel bound by any treaties that the US rampantly violated.

So that's what this ultimately means. It means more dead "suspected-without-evidence" drug runners AND more dead or tortured Americans.

 

[superrific]

Th

The Allies took nearly 200,000 German prisoners on D-Day.

On D-Day, or in Normandy? 200K is a lot for a day or two. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that dramatically exceeds my understanding of the events. Of course, it doesn't change your point one iota.