Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read More
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 More
Former Trump administration official Keith Kellogg criticized the assassination of Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov in Moscow, arguing that such actions, especially targeting high-ranking officers in their home country, may violate the laws of war and are strategically unwise. Kellogg noted the reported use of a recruited individual in the assassination, deeming the method ill-advised. While acknowledging the action as a regrettable aspect of warfare, he emphasized that it doesn’t inherently impede potential peace talks. The US previously distanced itself from the event.
Read More
In “The War on Warriors,” Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, frames the American left as an internal enemy, arguing that “woke” ideology is weakening the military. He contends that initiatives like diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are detrimental to military readiness and advocates for a more aggressive approach to warfare, dismissing rules of engagement as overly restrictive and hindering victory. Hegseth calls for a rewriting of the laws of war, prioritizing decisive wins over adherence to international norms. The book also portrays the military as a positive force for young men, contrasting it with what he describes as a left-wing attack on American values and the Constitution.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker