By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Post’s account of Bradley’s order for a second strike, allegedly targeting survivors due to their potential to alert traffickers, raises serious legal concerns. Experts argue this rationale violates the laws of war, especially if the live drone feed shows survivors being killed. Crucially, Bradley’s testimony is needed to clarify Hegseth’s orders and explain the events. Furthermore, the push for public release of a Justice Department memo justifying the strikes, which experts deem legally weak, could reveal a potentially flawed legal basis for the actions, including preemptive claims of immunity.
Read the original article here
Trump Boat Bombings Suddenly on Shakier Ground as Damning Info Emerges
The situation surrounding the alleged Trump-era boat bombings is quickly evolving, and it seems the ground beneath the narrative is becoming increasingly unstable. This isn’t just about a potential misstep or a regrettable decision; it’s rapidly transforming into an accusation of outright murder and war crimes, potentially with significant repercussions. The core issue? The targeting of vessels, reportedly carrying suspected drug runners, in international waters. While the initial strikes are concerning, it’s the subsequent attacks, the “double tap,” that are drawing the most intense scrutiny and painting a truly disturbing picture.
The gravity of the situation lies not just in the act itself but in the potential violation of established laws of war. The US military’s own Law of War Manual explicitly addresses this: an order to attack shipwrecked individuals, those rendered defenseless, constitutes a clear violation. The second strike, if confirmed, seems to fall squarely into this category. The question then becomes, why wasn’t this immediately recognized as the war crime that it is? How did this even happen? And what will the consequences be?
Adding to the complexities are the questions surrounding the legitimacy of the initial strikes. Even assuming a valid justification for targeting the boats, the follow-up attack, aimed at survivors, removes any semblance of justification. It’s akin to committing murder. If the first strike was a murky area for debate, then the second strike is a clear-cut case of criminal intent. To take out people in the water who had surrendered? The implications of such actions resonate far beyond the immediate context.
The potential ramifications could extend beyond legal penalties. If deemed a war crime, those involved could face travel restrictions, barring them from enjoying the freedoms that many take for granted, like golfing in Europe. This story is also not getting the coverage it should. Especially when so many other things have taken the news cycle focus.
The media plays a key role in all of this, and one can’t help but wonder if the full story is being told. The details about the “double tap” are what make this particularly damning. The focus should be on the facts: the initial strike, followed by a second attack on survivors, a deliberate act of violence against those who posed no immediate threat. The lack of any plausible deniability, the blatant disregard for international law, these are all elements that weigh heavily against those involved. It is an extraordinary case of murder in the middle of the ocean.
Further, there is the matter of the moral compass, or lack thereof. The idea that these acts were carried out with apparent impunity, and even celebrated by certain factions, is shocking. It underscores a troubling disregard for human life and the established rules of engagement. This is not about a politically charged story: this is the potential for war crimes and a blatant disrespect for the law.
The argument that a soldier should follow orders is also highly suspect. The expectation that soldiers can ignore obviously illegal orders may fall apart here. If the orders are blatantly illegal, the soldier is obligated to refuse. It’s not a matter of debate; it’s a fundamental principle of military law. This also gives a chance for higher-ups to be held accountable.
This situation also highlights the potential for abuse of power. The implication that such actions are acceptable, or even encouraged, is deeply unsettling. It’s a sign of a decaying democracy. The willingness of certain politicians to support these actions, and even enable them, only amplifies the concerns. The fact that the Senate voted against legislation to reassert congressional power over declarations of war is a grave concern. This is how these things are allowed to happen.
Ultimately, the Trump boat bombings are on increasingly shaky ground, not just because of the actions themselves, but because of the principles they seem to represent. This is about accountability, transparency, and upholding the laws of war.