Chavista shills and Trump-haters are dancing with glee at the claim that President Trump committed a so-called "war crime" when a drug boat targeted for destruction on the high seas was hit with two strikes, the second of which killed two survivors of the first strike in the water.
According to the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military would have committed a crime if it killed the survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat, legal experts say.
It doesn’t matter whether the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels as the Trump administration asserts. Such a fatal second strike would have violated peacetime laws and those governing armed conflict, the experts say.
“I can’t imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water,” said Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College. “That is clearly unlawful.”
According to one leftist writing at the HuffPo:
Killing survivors of a destroyed vessel is literally an example of a war crime in the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual reads.
And USA Today reports that Congress is harrumphing:
Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi, and Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, have said that they would be looking into the Sept. 2 incident, which consisted of two U.S. strikes targeted toward alleged narcotics vessels in international waters.
The committee would "be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances,” the lawmakers said in a statement Nov. 28.
It's nonsense.
A reader at the New Neo's site posted better details about what the laws are on striking boats without flags in international waters, which applies to this case:
”But of course this was no warship, and the drug-runners are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. What law does apply?”The laws of stateless vessels.The laws of a country extend 12 miles out from its shores. All vessels within that limit are subject to that country’s jurisdiction. Beyond that limit all vessels must fly the flag under whose jurisdiction they are sailing. Someone committing a crime in international waters is subject to the laws of the country under whose flag he is sailing. In addition, that country is responsible for the actions of a vessel flying its flag.These boats are not flying Venezuela’s flag, and thus Venezuela is not legally responsible for them. They’re not flying *any* flag — so no country is responsible for their actions, but they don’t receive the protections of any country either. They are stateless vessels and, under the law, essentially pirates.Vessels in international waters are required to monitor specific radio frequencies and to respond to the hailing of any coast guard or navy. A stateless vessel which fails to do so can be considered a pirate vessel and dealt with accordingly. Much like a soldier out of uniform picking up a gun on a battlefield and fighting, pirates are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The laws of piracy, not warfare, apply.
I've taught the Laws of Armed Conflict to U.S. and mult. allied troops. It's comical to have online experts inform me:
— Jim Hanson (@JimHansonDC) December 2, 2025
The Laws of War do not apply to killing terrorists because Congress didn't declare war
WRONG
You can't make a 2nd strike at a boat you're sinking because there… pic.twitter.com/U7Nsi65oi9
It's a pirate ship. The U.S. Marine Corps has a storied history of getting rid of pirate ships. They're a threat no matter how you look at them. And this one contained 11 Tren de Aragua gang members, the world's worst of the worst.
Darn right they needed to get rid of it. The Trump team was right in calling it self-defense.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/12/venezuela_boat_strike_baloney.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.