U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Trump declares airspace over Venezuela closed

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 938
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
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).
 
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).
Battle? Seriously?
 
This is Ram's source as best I can tell:

New details emerged Wednesday about the second strike by the U.S. military on an alleged boat on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors, according to a source familiar with the incident.

The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike, the source said.

They were believed to be potentially in communication with others in the vicinity and were salvaging some of the drugs that had been the boat’s cargo, the source said, and because of these actions were determined to be "still in the fight" and considered to be valid targets.
 
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).
You're the most willfully gullible fuck that ever lived.
 
This is Ram's source as best I can tell:

New details emerged Wednesday about the second strike by the U.S. military on an alleged boat on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors, according to a source familiar with the incident.

The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike, the source said.

They were believed to be potentially in communication with others in the vicinity and were salvaging some of the drugs that had been the boat’s cargo, the source said, and because of these actions were determined to be "still in the fight" and considered to be valid targets.
Sounds like a single source? Almost certainly from the government side. "Climbed back on the boat" and "believed" to be "potentially" in communication with others seems like the only possible new info.

Also they've just been predator droned at sea and they're trying to salvage drugs? Into what? Is the boat still afloat?
 
Sounds like a single source? Almost certainly from the government side. "Climbed back on the boat" and "believed" to be "potentially" in communication with others seems like the only possible new info.

Also they've just been predator droned at sea and they're trying to salvage drugs? Into what? Is the boat still afloat?
Wait. You think this account seems suspiciously like a CYA? Seriously? You don't think a couple of dudes swimming around on flotsam were a serious threat to the armed forces of the USA?
 
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).
Lol...if you had just been bombed at sea, you wouldn't climb into anything floating? You cannot possibly be this dumb.
 
Sounds like a single source? Almost certainly from the government side. "Climbed back on the boat" and "believed" to be "potentially" in communication with others seems like the only possible new info.

Also they've just been predator droned at sea and they're trying to salvage drugs? Into what? Is the boat still afloat?
They were going to make a Huck Finn and Jim raft and bring those narcotics, kidnapped women and girls to America.
 
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).
I do not think battle is a term you understand. Were they firin’ at the drones with their pistolas?
 
Wait. You think this account seems suspiciously like a CYA? Seriously? You don't think a couple of dudes swimming around on flotsam were a serious threat to the armed forces of the USA?
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.
 
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.
And none of this was okay to begin with. Extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers is not okay. Trying to defend any of it is ludicrous.
 
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.
I especially like the 'they were in touch with terrorist' part. Probably using the burning hulk to transmit smoke signals to one of the all to common Al-queada cells rafting around the Caribbean.
 
Note the "on the other hand" language...

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal.For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.27 Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal.28 On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.29

The "on the other hand" language is important because it indicates clearly that the preceding example (firing on shipwrecked survivors) does not qualify as an example where the subsequent caveat (except if the person getting the order doesn't have enough information to tell if the order is illegal) would apply.
1. An admiral and pilot should know that this is illegal. I don’t think not knowing the legality is an excuse here. Both are professionals who study this stuff.

2. It is hard to imagine that the admiral had not consulted with attorneys for the prospect of being asked to fire a seconds time on a incapacitated boat.

No doubt the attorneys advising the admiral are compromised. Trump has replaced many of them.

But either case, the “subordinate not competent” would seem to be a weak defense.
 
Back
Top