Experts explain what the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike

By BEN FINLEY and KONSTANTIN TOROPIN Associated Press
AP

WASHINGTON —

This is not simply a violation of peacetime; this is murder by a nation which professes that it desires to lead a world order and for which its history of slavery, the wiping out of Native Americans to excused continual wars on nations around the world, to its entire pedophilic politicians and presidents who never receive punishment for their crimes against children ; these are men who seek to remove any accountability, refusing to pay reparations but instead fund a war machine which kills black and brown people, they seek to reframe the narrative as somehow white replacement.

Today there are over 200 million white Americans, Blacks who at one time represented a commodity for which white Americans essentially grew black people, like vegetables, fruits etc, as the black populations numbered 6- 1 white persons in some regions of the United Sates. to the fact that over a hundred million Native Americans, despite an academic mafia supporting scientist using fraudulent carbon dating and data so as top reduce the brutality waged by a criminal cabal, white accountability has never been a question for which anyone has given any consideration. Jews are blamed for slavery, while Blacks today carry the name of their enslaver, which is not Silverstein or Wahlberg, but rather Protestant names for which continue to wage wars of hatred on nations around the world justifying their actions as noble acts. This from a country which deems itself the moral authority to lead the future under a new world order, must be rejected on every level by any and all sentient, empathetic caring men and women who believe in a God and the sanctity of human life.

Titi Long

The U.S. military would have committed a crime if it killed the survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat, legal experts say.

It doesn’t matter whether the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels as the Trump administration asserts. Such a fatal second strike would have violated peacetime laws and those governing armed conflict, the experts say.

“I can’t imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water,” said Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College. “That is clearly unlawful.”

The White House confirmed Monday that a second strike was conducted in September against a vessel accused of trafficking drugs off the coast of Venezuela and insisted it was done “in self-defense” and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.

A news report about that attack spawned a new level of scrutiny from lawmakers and added to a growing debate about whether service members can refuse to follow illegal orders, which some Democratic lawmakers recently encouraged.

Here’s what to know about the strikes and laws of armed conflict:

What set off the debate

The Washington Post reported last week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a spoken directive to “kill everybody” on a boat targeted on Sept. 2, the first vessel hit in what the Trump administration calls a counterdrug campaign that has grown to over 20 known strikes and more than 80 dead.

Two men survived that first attack, which killed nine others, and were clinging to the wreckage, the newspaper reported. The commander in charge, Adm. Frank Bradley, ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, killing the two men, the Post reported.

Hegseth called it “fake news” on social media, saying the boat strikes are “in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

President Donald Trump said Sunday that the administration “will look into” it but added that “I wouldn’t have wanted that — not a second strike.” He noted that Hegseth told him “he did not order the death of those two men.”

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday that Bradley had ordered the second strike and “was well within his authority to do so.” She denied that Hegseth said to leave no survivors.

The administration has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, similar to the war against al-Qaida following the Sept. 11 attacks.

What the law allows during armed conflict

A second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not, Schmitt said.

He said the U.S. is not in a legitimate armed conflict with drug cartels, which would have to be committing high levels of violence against the country, not just trafficking drugs that kill Americans.

Even if it was, “it has been clear for well over a century that you may not declare what’s called ‘no quarter’ — take no survivors, kill everyone,” Schmitt said.

Whether an armed conflict is taking place likely would not be settled by an international body like the International Criminal Court, to which the U.S. is not a party, said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the George W. Bush administration.

The U.S., however, could face blowback from allies, which may decline to share information for military operations that are illegal under their own laws or international law, said Waxman, who served in the State and Defense departments and on the National Security Council under Bush.

America’s armed conflict against al-Qaida received support from the U.N. Security Council, NATO and U.S. allies, he said.

The legal threat posed to US military personnel

If the U.S. is not in an armed conflict, that means it violated international human rights law, which governs how countries treat individuals, Schmitt said.

“You can only use lethal force in circumstances where there is an imminent threat,” Schmitt said. “And that wasn’t the case.”

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group and a former State Department lawyer, agreed that the U.S. is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels.

“The term for a premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder,” Finucane said, adding that U.S. military personnel could be prosecuted in American courts.

“Murder on the high seas is a crime,” he said. “Conspiracy to commit murder outside of the United States is a crime. And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118 makes murder an offense.”

The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders.

“For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”

What Congress has said about what comes next

Leaders of the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate have opened investigations.

Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate’s committee, and its top Democrat, Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, said the committee “will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

Concern about the second strike comes after a group of Democratic lawmakers — all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community — released a video calling on U.S. military members to defy “illegal orders.”

Among them was Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and former Navy fighter pilot who has questioned the use of the military to attack the alleged drug boats. The Pentagon says it’s investigating Kelly over possible breaches of military law tied to the video.

Kelly said Monday that “if what seems to have happened, actually happened, I’m really concerned about our service members.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has defended the boat strikes as stopping the flow of narcotics into the U.S. and said to wait for the outcome of the reviews.

“Obviously, if there was a direction to take a second shot and kill people, that’s a violation of an ethical, moral or legal code. We need to get to the bottom of it,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican.

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Groves, Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

____
https://www.wcvb.com/article/legal-experts-drug-boat-strike/69604124