By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent reports detail a U.S. Navy SEALs strike on a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean on September 2, allegedly ordered by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, that may constitute a war crime. Following an initial strike that disabled the boat, a second attack targeting survivors in the water, resulting in at least two deaths, was reported. Sen. Mark Kelly and other lawmakers, all veterans, expressed serious concerns, citing that such actions are unlawful and potentially rise to the level of war crimes. Congressional committees, led by Republicans, are planning investigations into the operation, amidst escalating military campaigns in the region and growing concerns of a full-scale invasion of Venezuela, where President Trump has closed the airspace.
Read the original article here
Mark Kelly says description of alleged U.S. boat strike is ‘clearly not lawful’ is a sentiment that resonates with a deep and fundamental understanding of both military law and basic human decency. The implication, based on the provided input, is that there are accounts of a U.S. military action involving an attack on a boat, and potentially the targeting of survivors, which is viewed by Senator Kelly as patently illegal. It’s a statement that cuts straight to the core of the issue, leaving little room for ambiguity.
The reaction, naturally, is one of outrage and disbelief that such an act could even be considered. The input brings to mind specific examples of historical atrocities, like the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, where allied forces, including the U.S., engaged in the strafing and bombing of shipwrecked soldiers, underscoring the horrific nature of such acts. This is a point frequently brought up, and understandably so, considering the gravity of the situation. It highlights the deeply ingrained taboo against harming those who are no longer actively fighting, a principle enshrined in international law, and especially the Geneva Conventions. The concept of “no survivors” is chilling and should never be considered as a possible outcome.
The discussion quickly veers into the legal implications, referencing illegal orders and war crimes. The mention of a military law textbook’s example of illegal orders – specifically, targeting survivors of a sunk ship – paints a clear picture. The act is presented as a universally understood violation, something that should be beyond question. The discussion focuses on the severity of the act, with the comment suggesting that those responsible should face harsh consequences, possibly including the military’s most severe punishments.
The input also raises questions about accountability. The very fact that this is alleged is troubling. If such an event occurred and is being downplayed or denied, it suggests a potential cover-up. The comments express a disbelief that something like this could be happening, implying that it is against all the Geneva convention and current military laws. The sentiment is that we should be asking “how do we stop a corrupt administration when they write all the rules”.
The input also touches on the potential for pardons. This is an important point. If the alleged perpetrators were to be prosecuted and then pardoned, it would undermine the very fabric of justice and international law. The fact that a former president has previously pardoned a navy seal accused of war crimes in Iraq, gives this concern more weight.
Beyond the legal aspect, there is a clear understanding of the broader implications of such actions, specifically how it could increase the resistance of the enemy. The act of killing shipwrecked survivors sends a message that no quarter will be given, fostering a culture of fight-to-the-death battles. The idea of respecting surrenders and international law is essential, but it is clear that many in the current situation are not on the same page.