By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following an early September U.S. strike on a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, two survivors were observed waving overhead before being killed in a controversial second strike. The second strike has raised concerns as some interpret the actions of the survivors as attempts to signal for help or to stop further attacks. The operation, part of a broader campaign against drug trafficking, has led to numerous fatalities and has garnered increased scrutiny. While officials maintain the strikes were lawful, some lawmakers disagree on whether the killing of survivors could potentially constitute a war crime.
Read the original article here
Survivors of the Sept. 2 boat strike were waving before the second attack, sources say, and this crucial detail fundamentally alters the narrative surrounding the event. It shifts the focus from a potential military action against a hostile target to something far more troubling: the apparent targeting of individuals attempting to signal for help. This information throws the entire situation into question, demanding a thorough and transparent investigation. It is a detail that suggests a severe breakdown in judgment and a blatant disregard for basic human rights.
The implication of waving for help is that the individuals aboard the vessel were in distress and seeking assistance. This completely contradicts any justification for a second strike, rendering it a potentially egregious act. To fire upon those who are clearly signaling for survival raises serious concerns about the adherence to international laws and the principles of basic human decency. The situation is no longer a matter of military strategy, but one of morality and legality.
The subsequent attempt to reframe the incident through claims like the individuals were “trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight,” feels like a blatant attempt to deflect from the truth. The burden of proof would rest on those making such a claim, and the evidence needs to be scrutinized closely. Even if the vessel were involved in illicit activity, a second attack on survivors waving for help cannot be justified.
The fact that the initial boat strike was followed by a second attack, especially after individuals were attempting to signal for assistance, raises serious questions about the chain of command and the decisions made in this operation. Were clear orders given? Were those orders legal? Did anyone question the directive? It’s essential to understand who made the call and why. Such actions should not go unpunished.
The argument that those waving were somehow a continued threat, particularly if based on the unsubstantiated claim of drug trafficking, rings hollow. What kind of threat do shipwrecked individuals pose, especially when actively seeking rescue? Even considering potential illegal activity, this incident is a far cry from a justified military action.
The lack of transparency and the eagerness to provide a justification that is suspect, underscores the need for a comprehensive investigation. It is crucial to determine who issued the order for the second attack, what information they relied upon, and whether proper protocols were followed. Without such a transparent process, it is impossible to understand what truly happened and ensure that such events are prevented in the future.
The incident highlights a growing concern about the blurring of lines between law enforcement and military action, particularly in international waters. The use of deadly force should always be a last resort and subject to the strictest guidelines and oversight. The alleged use of such force in this instance, against those clearly signaling for help, demands accountability.
The reaction, and some of the justifications, also reflect a disturbing trend of dehumanizing those perceived as “enemies,” or in this case, potential criminals. This can have horrific implications. This perspective ignores the fundamental principle that even those accused of crimes retain basic human rights and are not subject to extrajudicial execution.
It is important to remember that this incident did not occur in a vacuum. It is part of a broader context of the use of force, both domestically and abroad, and is a symptom of some of the worst aspects of the past leadership. The failure to treat this event seriously will only embolden further abuses and damage the values of the nation.
Finally, it is paramount that any investigation is independent and objective, with all relevant evidence made public. The families of the victims deserve answers, and the American public needs to know the truth. Until then, the shadow of suspicion and wrongdoing will loom large.