By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Defense Department initially stated that the two individuals could have been attempting to radio their cartel, potentially indicating a continuation of their drug-trafficking mission. Lawmakers were briefed that the individuals were deemed capable of returning to combat. However, Trump has implied disagreement with the decision and suggests that the Defense Department’s reasoning for the second strike is untrue. Following the strike, Rep. Jim Himes described the individuals as being in distress and without the means of locomotion when killed by the U.S., leading to debate.
Read the original article here
Trump Confirms Democrats’ Story on Horrific Boat Strike Video – Donald Trump is verifying one key detail in the video of that second strike. It appears that Donald Trump has inadvertently confirmed a critical detail from the video of the boat strike, inadvertently aligning himself with the narrative that has been circulating, especially among Democrats, regarding the events.
Trump’s statement, specifically focusing on the second strike, seems to corroborate the idea that the targeted vessel was struck again, possibly while attempting to right itself. This detail is significant because it touches on the legality and morality of the action, potentially indicating an escalation from an initial, perhaps debatable, engagement to a clear-cut act that could be seen as a war crime, depending on interpretations of international law and the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions, as a reminder, offer a broad definition of “shipwrecked” individuals, essentially including anyone in peril at sea due to an unfortunate event. These individuals, if refraining from hostility, are entitled to rescue and humane treatment. The Second Geneva Convention extends this protection to naval warfare, demanding non-discriminatory care and humane treatment, even for captured Prisoners of War. Considering this, further attacks on the vessel, especially when crew members were trying to stay afloat, seem to be a violation of the Conventions.
The central point here, as many have highlighted, is the nature of the act itself. Regardless of the various justifications offered, striking a vessel a second time, especially if it was a deliberate act of violence against survivors, raises questions about whether this constitutes a war crime. As several commentators have pointed out, the initial action, even if justified by some, transforms into something considerably more serious if survivors are then targeted.
The implication is that the administration is trying to frame the situation, which some say is not a “war” because there’s no declaration of it, as something that allows them to do certain actions without question. There are numerous claims of “war” to justify the actions.
The comments repeatedly return to the assertion that these are not war crimes, because there is no war to begin with. The United States is not in a declared war or engaged in a recognized armed conflict with drug cartels, as some may claim. Therefore, the applicable legal framework would not be the laws of war, but domestic laws on murder. This perspective fundamentally shifts the conversation, removing the possibility of justifying the attacks under a “war” framework.
The original comments have suggested that instead of “war crimes,” these were just crimes. The strikes are viewed as extrajudicial executions, a series of killings potentially qualifying as murder under U.S. domestic law and violations of international human rights. This position argues that the focus should be on the individual actions and the individuals responsible for them.
Many individuals are saying there’s no real action anyone can take, despite the potential severity of the situation. Some are outraged, and some are shocked. There is very likely no upside here politically.
The legal and moral implications surrounding such incidents are, therefore, immense. The central question boils down to whether the actions taken were justified, whether they violated international and domestic laws, and what consequences should follow. Many people claim that no matter what the reality is, the administration has been doing this for a while and nothing will change.
There’s also a question as to whether Trump is trying to get support or not. The details, the actions, and the implications, are being discussed throughout the legal and political spheres, but with no real conclusion or action.