By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Tim Kaine stated that a reported U.S. follow-on strike in the Caribbean, allegedly resulting in the killing of survivors, could constitute a war crime, violating international and domestic laws. The Washington Post reported Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the elimination of all survivors, a claim he denies. Investigations have been pledged by congressional leaders. Further, Kaine noted that the pace is escalating and that there is potential for increased support of war powers resolutions, particularly if ground action is taken in Venezuela.
Read the original article here
Sen. Tim Kaine’s statement on the reported second strike on an alleged drug boat, suggesting it could constitute a war crime if true, has ignited a considerable amount of discussion. The core of the concern, as voiced by many, revolves around the very nature of these actions and whether they fall under the definition of a war crime, or simply premeditated murder. The consensus seems to lean heavily towards the latter, given the lack of a declared war.
The narrative emerging from this situation suggests that the first strike itself may have been a crime, regardless of the boat’s alleged activities. The core issue is the lack of due process, the apparent targeting of individuals who were not presenting an immediate threat, and the absence of any real transparency surrounding the events. The repeated actions, as described by some, seem more akin to targeted killings than legitimate military operations. Many feel the use of the term “war crime” is an attempt to sanitize what they perceive as cold-blooded murder. The call for accountability and the demand for evidence, if any, to support the claims against the boat and its crew are very prominent.
The lack of any definitive action after the fact is a recurring theme. The question isn’t just whether the strikes are illegal, but whether anyone will be held accountable. The reactions reflect a deep-seated distrust of the authorities, including Democrats, and a pervasive cynicism about the justice system’s ability to hold powerful figures accountable. The focus is shifting from statements to action. The repeated call is for those responsible to be indicted.
The criticism extends beyond the immediate events, encompassing broader concerns about the US’s foreign policy and its history of military interventions. It’s pointed out, the US has engaged in such actions for decades with little to no consequences. Some commenters are using this situation as a broader indictment of the US’s approach to international relations, calling for an end to the perceived impunity enjoyed by those involved in such actions.
The reactions express deep frustration with politicians, especially those who appear to be more concerned with political posturing than genuine action. The focus quickly turns to the people involved in the strike, and their potential culpability. One of the strongest sentiments is the call for those responsible to be held accountable. The tone of the discussion is critical, with little faith that any real investigation or punishment will follow.
Many find the entire situation infuriating and deeply troubling, seeing it as a symptom of a larger problem. The repeated accusations of war crimes, or, more simply, murder, reflect a sense that something fundamentally wrong has occurred, and a lack of trust in the institutions that are supposed to provide oversight. The calls for transparency and accountability are interwoven with a sense of disillusionment about the political process.
The sentiment that the attacks were illegal regardless of the boat’s cargo is quite strong. The fact that the US has, in the past, captured suspected drug smugglers rather than resorting to lethal force further fuels the accusations of premeditation. The discussion reveals a profound distrust of authority and a conviction that those in power are not being held accountable for their actions.
The comments express significant frustration that such actions are happening and seem to go unpunished. The overarching theme is one of anger and disbelief that these types of events occur without serious repercussions for those involved. The sentiment appears to be that the first strike was a crime, and therefore the second, if it happened, just exacerbated it.