By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Military attorneys initially suggested the second strike might be justified if survivors posed a threat. However, the available footage reportedly contradicted this, leaving little room for doubt about the situation. Representative Jim Himes described the killing of the distressed individuals as extremely troubling, emphasizing their inability to continue any mission. While a “kill them all” order was not given, the circumstances surrounding the strike remain highly concerning.
Read the original article here
The core of the matter revolves around a deeply disturbing video shown to lawmakers, a video that depicts a military action that appears, in the clearest possible terms, to be murder. The narrative unfolding paints a grim picture: a boat is struck, and in the aftermath, two survivors, clearly in distress, are then targeted and killed. This isn’t a complex, nuanced situation open to interpretation; it’s a direct violation of fundamental principles of warfare and basic human decency. Representative Jim Himes’s account, describing the survivors as being in “clear distress,” underscores the utter lack of justification for the second strike.
The outrage is palpable, and rightfully so. The initial airstrike, regardless of the target’s alleged activity, is questionable in itself. But the decision to eliminate survivors, clinging to wreckage, is a blatant war crime. The assertion that these individuals posed a threat, as any potential justification, is rendered implausible by the video evidence. It’s not just a matter of legal technicalities; it’s a moral failure of the highest order. The idea that a powerful military force would expend expensive weaponry to kill vulnerable survivors is shocking and appalling, and the fact that it apparently happened in the Caribbean, adds another layer of gravity to the situation.
The potential for excuses is there; there is a precedent for justifications, but those defenses crumble in the face of the apparent facts. There will be attempts to justify the act, perhaps by framing the victims as dangerous, or by suggesting they were in the midst of illegal activity. Yet, the video evidence seems to leave no room for doubt: these were not combatants engaged in an ongoing threat. The core issue is the intentional killing of individuals who posed no immediate threat. Even in a state of war, there are rules, and these rules have been broken.
The implication is that there is a culture of impunity at play. The administration and those in power may be operating under the assumption that they are above the law, that they can act with reckless abandon, and that they will not be held accountable for their actions. This raises fundamental questions about the military’s role, their adherence to the law, and the chain of command. The fact that the highest-ranking military officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were present at the meeting to defend the actions only intensifies the gravity of the situation. It suggests complicity, or at the very least, a lack of willingness to challenge illegal orders.
The discussion also turns to the issue of drug interdiction, and the debate is about the legitimacy of the initial strikes. Even if the destroyed boat was involved in illegal activities, that does not give a license to kill. It raises crucial questions about the use of military force and the necessity of proportionality. This also underscores the moral bankruptcy of such actions, even if that were the initial goal. Furthermore, the focus on the “drug boat” narrative may serve to distract from the core issue: the murder of defenseless individuals.
The need for accountability is paramount. Calls for charges against those involved, including those who ordered the strikes and those who carried them out, are gaining momentum. The military, like any other institution, must operate under the rule of law. And, if the evidence points towards criminal behavior, the perpetrators should be brought to justice. The idea of the Supreme Court being a safety net for any potential law-breaking by the president is a dangerous one.
The larger implications here cannot be overstated. This is not just about a single incident; it’s about the erosion of ethical standards, the abuse of power, and the potential for the military to become an instrument of political ends. A nation that tolerates such actions risks becoming a pariah state, one that is isolated and despised on the world stage. It’s also about the military personnel who may have been involved. Do they follow an illegal order? Do they have a duty to refuse? These are critical questions that must be addressed.
The overall sentiment is one of disgust and outrage. It’s a reminder that even in an age of advanced technology and seemingly endless resources, the basic principles of human decency and the rule of law must prevail. The call to action is clear: hold those responsible accountable, demand transparency, and reaffirm the values that this country is supposed to stand for.