By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read the original article here
The Hegseth defense is crumbling, and the details emerging from the Democrats’ revelation of a horrific video strike are deeply disturbing. It’s a situation that screams for scrutiny, and the evidence points to a potential war crime. The initial strike, the one that started this whole mess, seems to have been illegal from the start. Taking out people suspected of drug dealing, without any imminent threat, is akin to police executing suspects on a whim. The situation highlights a frightening disregard for the law.
The core of the issue hinges on the second strike, and the details presented are appalling. The laws of war explicitly forbid killing those who are no longer actively engaged in combat, including the shipwrecked. Yet, according to the information, officials were told that these men were still considered “in the fight” because of the possibility that drugs could still be retrieved from the capsized vessel. It’s a flimsy justification, bordering on absurd. This completely undercuts Hegseth’s narrative, especially given that he claimed he didn’t even see the survivors. The evidence paints a grim picture: these men were visible, meaning the “fog of war” excuse doesn’t hold water.
What makes this even worse is the apparent intent behind the strikes. Sources indicate that Hegseth’s declared mission was to eliminate all eleven individuals on board. The order seems to have been: “Destroy the drugs, kill all 11 people on that boat.” This seems to show a blatant disregard for the rules of engagement. Considering this, the second strike was ordered to fulfill this very command. It’s not a question of interpretation; this looks like a straightforward war crime. This demands investigation and possible legal action, and the implications should terrify every single American.
The evidence is mounting. Senator Cotton’s statement that the survivors were “trying to flip a boat, loaded with drugs bound for the United States, back over so they could stay in the fight” is a lie, as the boat was already capsized, and any drugs in it would’ve been lost. It confirms the individuals were shipwrecked, a critical point in determining the legality of the operation. This whole situation is an example of what can happen when laws are twisted to become tools. Many are worried about future elections, and the possibility of cheating, violence, and illegal actions. The fear is real and understandable, especially if some of the key players involved have something to lose if they face accountability.
The narrative is being shaped in a way that minimizes the severity of what happened. Some outlets are twisting the reality, focusing on what they believe the survivors were trying to do instead of acknowledging the horrific nature of the events. It’s important to remember that this wasn’t an act of self-defense or a necessary military operation; it was murder. Many Republicans seem to be brushing this aside. However, there’s a strong belief that the people involved will face no repercussions. This is the tragic part, the expectation that nothing will change, and justice won’t be served. The cycle of outrage and inaction has become a disheartening reality.
The core of the issue: It’s murder, pure and simple. It’s a military-grade version of stop-and-frisk, and that is terrifying. The details of the video are horrifying, with the death toll potentially reaching eighty. And it all boils down to the actions of someone who might not be qualified or appropriate for his role. The excuses, the lack of transparency, and the potential for a cover-up all contribute to the growing sense of unease.
The response from the military seems odd. Why not attempt to rescue any survivors? It’s baffling that they wouldn’t try to get them into custody. The revelations raise more questions than answers. The fact that the Laws of War Manual is being used as a reference point only underscores the gravity of the situation. The manual clearly states that firing upon shipwrecked individuals is illegal. This means the second strike, as it’s presented, may have violated the most basic tenets of the laws of war.
It’s tempting to feel cynical, to believe that nothing will happen. The usual suspects will likely escape consequences while those involved go off to live their lives, with minimal or no punishment. However, it’s imperative to keep the pressure on. The chain of command, from top to bottom, needs to be held accountable. This should not be swept under the rug and forgotten. It needs to be investigated, and those responsible need to face consequences.