By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On September 2, U.S. military forces attacked a vessel, leaving two survivors clinging to the wreckage for roughly 45 minutes before a second strike was ordered by Adm. Frank Bradley, resulting in their deaths. Although the survivors were seen waving towards aircraft overhead, potentially signaling for help, Bradley claimed they still posed a threat. He justified the follow-up strikes by alleging the men could have been transporting drugs and would rejoin the fight. However, sources and experts have questioned the legality of these actions, highlighting that the men did not pose an imminent threat and that these strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings.
Read the original article here
Boat strike survivors clung to wreckage for some 45 minutes before U.S. military killed them. This is the chilling reality that seems to be emerging from this situation. It’s a stark and disturbing picture, and the details that are surfacing are deeply troubling. The core of the matter is that after a strike, survivors were left in the water, clinging to what remained of their vessel, for a significant amount of time before they were targeted and killed. That initial act is a crime, the follow up is simply atrocious.
The initial reaction is one of disbelief and revulsion. How could this happen? The idea of abandoning people, especially when they were obviously no longer a threat, is the antithesis of what a civilized society should stand for, let alone a military. To then actively target and eliminate those survivors is a horrific escalation, a blatant violation of any semblance of ethical conduct and international law. We’re talking about a clear-cut case of murder. The military’s own Law of War Manual explicitly states that firing upon shipwrecked individuals is illegal.
The timing of the second strike is also critical. The accounts seem to vary, with some claiming it happened relatively quickly, while others suggest a delay of nearly an hour. The inconsistencies in the reports are concerning and raise serious questions about the chain of command, as well as the attempts to downplay the events. It’s almost as if everyone involved is trying to obscure the truth. One can’t help but wonder if this is about covering tracks, protecting individuals, or maybe something even more sinister.
The justifications offered, such as the idea that the survivors were still posing an imminent threat, just don’t hold water. What could they possibly do while struggling to stay afloat? To suggest they were still a danger is, frankly, insulting to anyone’s intelligence. It’s hard to imagine anyone buying into that argument. The fact that the narrative has been shifting – first, there was no second strike, then it happened hours later, and now we hear it was minutes or 45 minutes – makes it even more suspicious. It highlights a lack of accountability and respect for the truth.
The level of cruelty displayed is really something else. This isn’t just a military action gone wrong; it feels like something more. The fact that people in the chain of command seemingly decided to kill survivors rather than rescue them is a devastating sign of moral decay. The alleged motive – to prevent survivors from telling their story – speaks volumes. It’s not about military strategy; it’s about protecting the image and avoiding repercussions. That decision is a betrayal of the values that our military is supposed to uphold. The fact that Trump, the Secretary of Defense, and possibly others were involved points to a deeper systemic problem.
This situation has echoes of past atrocities, and comparisons to events that the world has rightly condemned are not hyperbole in this context. It’s impossible not to draw parallels. The order to kill survivors is precisely the type of behavior that resulted in war crimes trials after other conflicts. The legal obligation to rescue these people was disregarded, and in its place was a cold and calculated decision to kill them.
The response to this should be swift and decisive. There needs to be a thorough investigation, and everyone involved in the chain of command, from the pilot who fired the missile to the highest-ranking officials who gave the order, needs to be held accountable. To let this go unpunished would set a terrible precedent. This requires a level of action that goes far beyond token reprimands or symbolic gestures.
The outrage would be tremendous, and rightly so, if this had happened under another administration. This should transcend political allegiances. It’s about fundamental human decency and the rule of law. It’s essential that Congress gets involved, that those responsible are brought to justice, and that we reaffirm our commitment to the values we claim to represent. Anything less is a betrayal of our principles.