By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recently viewed video shown to senators depicts a US airstrike on a suspected drug smuggling boat, revealing two surviving, unarmed men clinging to wreckage before being killed in a subsequent attack. The video has sparked controversy as the US military has carried out 22 attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, with a death toll of at least 87 people. Legal experts and lawmakers have debated the legality of these strikes, particularly the killing of incapacitated survivors, as the US Department of Defense’s Law of War manual prohibits attacks on those who are incapacitated. The debate centers on whether these actions constitute war crimes given the circumstances of the attacks and whether the individuals are considered “combatants.”
Read the original article here
US airstrike survivors clung to boat wreckage for an hour before second deadly attack, video shows. The sheer horror of this situation is almost impossible to fully grasp. The idea that survivors, already clinging to wreckage after an initial airstrike, endured an entire hour in that desperate state only to be struck again, is sickening. It’s not just a matter of the initial tragedy; it’s the extended suffering, the slow realization of impending death, and the complete disregard for human life. To me, it raises a cascade of ethical questions, demanding accountability from those who gave the orders and those who carried them out. The extended period of time amplifies the cruelty of the act.
The immediate reaction is revulsion at the casual disregard for human life. The fact that the victims may or may not have been involved in illegal activities doesn’t change the fundamental inhumanity of the situation. It’s hard to believe that this isn’t a clear violation of international law. The very concept of “war” seems to be abused when applied to such incidents. The focus shifts to a chilling lack of restraint and empathy. The assertion that they were trying to “continue the fight” is absurd, given the circumstances of two survivors clinging to wreckage. The excuses given simply don’t hold water.
The comments surrounding this incident evoke the echoes of Nuremberg. The fact that war crimes, like the ones committed by the German naval officers in the case mentioned, have resulted in conviction and execution is significant. It underscores the point that orders, no matter from whom, do not absolve individuals of moral responsibility. There is an absolute minimum standard of behavior even in the midst of conflict and this was missed. The comparison is a crucial one, as it clearly illustrates that there are internationally recognized boundaries to warfare, and these boundaries were crossed.
The question of why the survivors were not rescued is paramount. If the goal was truly to disrupt drug trafficking, there would have been an incentive to capture and interrogate survivors. The failure to do so, points not to a war on drugs, but a cold and calculated targeting of a vessel and its crew. The lack of rescue efforts is highly suspicious and reveals the true nature of these operations. It is difficult to see any genuine attempt to stop drug smuggling.
This whole situation brings into question the idea of “fog of war.” How can that be a valid defense when an hour elapsed between strikes? The “fog of war” defense feels like a convenient excuse. The suggestion that it was a mistake is laughable. Mistakes hitting the same target twice suggests that something is rotten at the core. The reality of this situation isn’t about complexity; it’s about a callous disregard for human life. This isn’t just a military action; it’s murder.
It’s easy to feel a sense of despair. The fact that this could occur with so little repercussions is the most disturbing of all. It’s even more disturbing when you see people celebrating the deaths of human beings who had nothing to do with terrorism, but were just trying to survive. The potential for such actions to be repeated without consequences is chilling. The people in power, who made this decision, should be held accountable. And if the US government won’t do it, perhaps the international community should.
The notion of the survivors somehow being able to “continue the fight” is ridiculous. The mere suggestion that two people, clinging to wreckage, could pose a serious threat is farcical and insulting to the intelligence of the public. If there was a real threat, the best move would be to take them into custody and seize the contraband. But it seems this was not about stopping a drug smuggling operation; it was about something far more sinister.
The lack of evidence to justify the attacks is also concerning. Where is the proof that any of these boats were involved in drug trafficking? The absence of such evidence points to a much more worrying reality. The incident is not only a moral failure, but it’s also a strategic failure. The trust in our military has been shaken, and there’s a feeling that we are becoming the very thing we have fought against for so long. We are the most militarily powerful country in the world, and we seem to only be good at that. It’s a very sad thing to watch.
The repeated use of “support the troops” while committing what appear to be war crimes is deeply hypocritical. It’s a disgrace to the uniform and a betrayal of the values that we are supposed to stand for. This incident is a moral stain. And now, the question is, what will be done about it? The answer to that question will define America’s values for years to come.