politics

Was gonna ask if War was a stout or IPA.

And why did you attack it again if you thought there was no one alive?

Have you ever said something while drunk, and needed someone to remind you of what you said while drunk? Or have you ever played Mario Kart with another person?

Also no fog.

The fog of hangover?

Doesn't clear the fog of whiskey

The first is a big deal. All of these boat strikes have been a big deal. The problem is, despite not being at war, and the President not having the authority to declare we are, that's basically what is happening, and no one with authority is stopping it. However, that makes the nature of these boat strikes "debatable" to some whether they are actions of war, which would make them potentially legal military actions, or whether they are extrajudicial international attacks during peacetime, i.e. murder. They also claim that they have absolute knowledge about who is on these boats, what drugs are on them, where they are going, etc. and are claiming the right to strike them based on these details that privileged knowledge that they arent sharing. This obfuscation makes it harder to call them out on their bullshit even though it really shouldn't matter anyway, in terms of the legality of the strikes.

However, there is absolutely no legal justification, whether it be an act of war, drug enforcement, border control, etc. of double tapping survivors of a sunk vessel. As has been pointed out plenty, this exact scenario is literally the textbook example of an unlawful order that soldiers should not follow. So this particular situation bypasses that "debate" about whether these strikes are legal in the first place, and bypasses the obfuscation of information about who is on these boats and what activities they are participating in. Those things are irrelevant to the cut and dry fact that this double tap is illegal, full stop, and every level of command and execution of this specific action is culpable for either a war crime or murder. That's why this is such big news. The certainty.

The idea of rules to war might seems strange but I think the idea is that there IS such a thing as a legitimate military objective. For example if the boat IS a legitimate military threat to your nation, you've neutralized that threat by sinking the boat.

"Exterminate people you don't like" is NOT a legitimate military objective, so the second strike is NOT legitimate as the legitimate military objective has already been achieved.

But yes, I think many would agree that the initial strikes were ALSO illegal, it's just that the administration is hiding behind a declaration that these boats are a legitimate military threat so they create a grey area where they are unlikely to ever be held accountable.

The second strike is blatantly illegal and there's really no sane defense for that, by defending the second strike they're essentially admitting to being psychopaths who aren't behaving like legitimate military leadership.

It's just always cut and dry, firing on the ship wrecked is always illegal they are considered non-combatants at that point.

This is actually the example they use of an illegal order in the DOD manual.

Page 1117 18.3.2.1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23892053-dod-law-of-war-manual-june-2015-updated-july-2023/

Because it's illegal to shoot survivors of a ship you have sunk.

It's literally the textbook example of a war crime. Seriously, firing at people in the water after their vessel has been sunk is the example they use in military handbooks to explain what an illegal action is.

Because there could not be a more cut-and-dry example of an illegal order than firing on helpless shipwrecked survivors, that's why.

They’re both crimes, but the first strike has a lot more ambiguity attached to it. The first strike could be argued that it was a legal order. It’s not, but the fact that it could be argued means it is being argued. So discussing the initial strike just leads to bad faith arguments at best.

But with the second strike, there is absolutely no ambiguity. It was blatantly illegal, through and through. The only real defense the entire chain of command has for cold blooded murder is “I was just following orders.” And as World War 2 already proved, that isn’t a valid defense for war crimes.

war never changes