By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to two American officials, the U.S. military destroyed a boat off the coast of Venezuela with an initial strike, followed by a follow-up attack that killed those on board. The boat was under surveillance and appeared to turn toward shore before being struck, possibly by drones operated by Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The Trump administration has offered no evidence to support the assertion that the targeted individuals were “narcoterrorists,” and some officials, including Senator Rand Paul, have expressed concerns about the legality of the strike, given the lack of due process. A former State Department lawyer stated the U.S. is asserting the power to engage in the premeditated killing of people outside of armed conflict.
Read the original article here
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors, that’s a horrifying scenario to even consider. The very idea of a military force repeatedly attacking a boat near Venezuela, with the explicit goal of eliminating survivors, should send shivers down anyone’s spine. It suggests a level of brutality and disregard for human life that is deeply disturbing, especially when considering the potential implications under international law. Is it not a war crime? The question hangs heavy in the air.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. To me, the details paint a grim picture. Imagine a boat, possibly carrying civilians, targeted, and then, after the initial attack, the survivors are hunted down and killed. The mere fact that such a scenario is being discussed suggests the potential for severe violations of the Geneva Convention and other international laws of war. The deliberate targeting of unarmed individuals is a clear breach of fundamental principles. This would be considered a war crime *even if* we were at war with these people, which makes this case even more troubling.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. If true, this action would strip the United States of any moral high ground on the world stage. How can a nation that allegedly engages in such actions lecture other countries on human rights or justice? The hypocrisy is staggering. It would create a crisis of confidence, undermining the credibility of the United States and potentially emboldening other nations to engage in similar acts of violence with impunity. There is no ethical or moral principle that would allow this action.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. The implications of this are devastating. The suggestion that survivors were deliberately targeted to eliminate witnesses implies a deliberate cover-up. There is the suggestion of a “no witnesses” policy to silence any potential dissent. This is the stuff of nightmares, reminiscent of regimes that operate outside the bounds of any civilized standards.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. The alleged orders behind such an operation would be illegal. U.S. Navy officers are expected to uphold the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Convention. Unlawful orders, those that violate these principles, should be refused. It is unacceptable that such orders are executed by the military.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. This is not some isolated incident, but rather a symptom of a larger problem. The actions described suggest a disregard for international law, a willingness to operate outside the bounds of legality, and a culture of impunity. It’s a stark reminder of the importance of accountability and the need to hold those responsible for such acts to account. The Hague would be busy for years to come if such cases are allowed to continue.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. It’s important to understand the context in which these events allegedly occurred. The possibility that the people on the boat were not high-ranking members of any criminal enterprise, but rather, possibly, the victims of circumstances is a dark one. They might have been fishermen caught up in the crossfire or, perhaps, individuals forced into dangerous activities by desperate circumstances. Their potential vulnerability is a key point of interest.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. The fact that such actions could allegedly take place and go unreported is a damning indictment of the current state of affairs. This has the potential to undermine the public’s faith in institutions and erode the principles upon which our society is based. It demands thorough investigation and accountability at the highest levels. There should be an immediate impeachment.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. The potential motivations behind such an act, such as a desire to suppress any evidence, are just another example of the lengths that some people are willing to go to maintain power and avoid scrutiny. It is this, and the blatant disregard for any sense of human decency that is being considered.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. It’s easy to see how the idea is that such an action could be justified by framing those on the boat as drug smugglers. But the US has the responsibility to maintain basic decency. A claim must be confirmed, not assumed, before engaging in an action against civilians.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. The scale of the implications of this is huge. The idea that the US could act in such a way is alarming. This situation challenges the very foundations of what the United States is supposed to stand for. It’s not about oil or power but respect and basic decency.
US. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. The lack of widespread news coverage of this supposed event is concerning, which demonstrates that questions should be asked about why it hasn’t gained more attention. The failure of elected officials to speak out against such alleged atrocities is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of their responsibility to represent the interests of the people.