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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 27K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
My feeling is 99% of Trump voters would gleefully accept American soldiers being tortured and killed to protect Trump or any of his cronies.
 
ChileG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't know if the terrorists were acting rationally or not but I will believe what the Admiral and the JAG officer testify to as to what was occurring on the scene of the battle.

On Monday it supposed to be a crazed and confused Hegseth running the command and control shouting "kill all the survivors clinging to the boat." By today, it is clear that the respected Admiral was running the show advised by a JAG office as to the legalities of the 2nd strike (normal chain of command). Time to make more spaghetti to throw against the wall.
 
Ramrouser said:
Don't know if the terrorists were acting rationally or not but I will believe what the Admiral and the JAG officer testify to as to what was occurring on the scene of the battle.

On Monday it supposed to be a crazed and confused Hegseth running the command and control shouting "kill all the survivors clinging to the boat." By today, it is clear that the respected Admiral was running the show advised by a JAG office as to the legalities of the 2nd strike (normal chain of command). Time to make more spaghetti to throw against the wall.
Click to expand...
Do you lie as easily in court as you do here?
 
Ramrouser said:
Don't know if the terrorists were acting rationally or not but I will believe what the Admiral and the JAG officer testify to as to what was occurring on the scene of the battle.

On Monday it supposed to be a crazed and confused Hegseth running the command and control shouting "kill all the survivors clinging to the boat." By today, it is clear that the respected Admiral was running the show advised by a JAG office as to the legalities of the 2nd strike (normal chain of command). Time to make more spaghetti to throw against the wall.
Click to expand...
Well first of all in no world are these folks Terrorists. Criminals-sure..
Secondly how is this a battle? It is a bombing where the folks being bombed have zero weapons
I supppose you will talk about the Fog of war next?
 
Ddseddse said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fully agree with all of this.
 
Ramrouser said:
Don't know if the terrorists were acting rationally or not but I will believe what the Admiral and the JAG officer testify to as to what was occurring on the scene of the battle.

On Monday it supposed to be a crazed and confused Hegseth running the command and control shouting "kill all the survivors clinging to the boat." By today, it is clear that the respected Admiral was running the show advised by a JAG office as to the legalities of the 2nd strike (normal chain of command). Time to make more spaghetti to throw against the wall.
Click to expand...
Hegseth did say to kill all the survivors. And they did.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a concept that John McCain was intimately familiar with and fought throughout his life.

We need him now. He would be completely disgusted by what is going on.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
The self-interest theory of war crime law is not very compelling when dealing with non-state actors. The traffickers don't know whether there is a double tap or not (well, at least not until the story was reported) and in any event, they aren't changing their tactics based on double taps. It is not as though the cartel chief will think twice about torture because the US followed international law in open waters.
 
Calheel said:
The self-interest theory of war crime law is not very compelling when dealing with non-state actors. The traffickers don't know whether there is a double tap or not (well, at least not until the story was reported) and in any event, they aren't changing their tactics based on double taps. It is not as though the cartel chief will think twice about torture because the US followed international law in open waters.
Click to expand...
It ain't about what they respect or expect. It's about self respect. We've always expected ourselves to be better although we sure haven't been perfect.
 
finesse said:
It ain't about what they respect or expect. It's about self respect. We've always expected ourselves to be better although we sure haven't been perfect.
Click to expand...
I can buy that argument. I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct. But I don't buy Super's argument with respect to non-state actors. I don't think the treatment of our captured soldiers would change in any meaningful way when dealing with drug traffickers.
 
Calheel said:
The self-interest theory of war crime law is not very compelling when dealing with non-state actors. The traffickers don't know whether there is a double tap or not (well, at least not until the story was reported) and in any event, they aren't changing their tactics based on double taps. It is not as though the cartel chief will think twice about torture because the US followed international law in open waters.
Click to expand...
We are about to go to war with Venezuela. They will assume that we will behave the same against them as we have done against the cartels. I would assume that. The fact that the administration conflates Venezuela with the cartels adds weight to that assumption.

In either case, they could use our war crimes to justify their own.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
We are about to go to war with Venezuela. They will assume that we will behave the same against them as we have done against the cartels. I would assume that. The fact that the administration conflates Venezuela with the cartels adds weight to that assumption.

In either case, they could use our war crimes to justify their own.
Click to expand...
Some merit to that argument.

Armies have TVs, too.
 
Imo, the friends this wins us on the international stage are not really the sort I want for friends. That doesn't seem to bother those in charge like it does me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top