Are you the type of person who would execute wounded survivors of a missile strike?

C

Cypress

Well-known member
“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.”

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


www.pbs.org

What the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike, according to experts

Leveling a second strike on the survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat would have been a crime, legal experts say.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
 
Cypress said:
“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.”

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


www.pbs.org

What the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike, according to experts

Leveling a second strike on the survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat would have been a crime, legal experts say.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
That really depends on the specific circumstances of the specific event. Life evolves in a perpetual balancing outcome scenario those living are physically existing as eternally separated by mutual hearts beating at the same time their individual brain is navigating space where they are located now in this atmosphere.
 
Cypress said:
“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.”

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


www.pbs.org

What the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike, according to experts

Leveling a second strike on the survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat would have been a crime, legal experts say.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
{Sarcasm}
Of course I would. Per Leavitt, they're a threat to the US. Apparently they're going to swim to land and fist fight Americans?

FOX: You said the follow up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors?

LEAVITT: The strike was conducted in self defense to protect Americans
 
serenity said:
That really depends on the specific circumstances of the specific event.
Click to expand...
You finish Hitler off if he only takes a bullet to the leg.

Last week, the boat and the cocaine were sunk (assuming it was a drug boat) and you had a few wounded survivors clinging to flotsam who were most likely either going to drown or bleed out.
 
Cypress said:
“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.”

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


www.pbs.org

What the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike, according to experts

Leveling a second strike on the survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat would have been a crime, legal experts say.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...

Trump is a dangerous toddler wielding horrific power to hurt and kill. Someone needs to take the war toys away from him. I do not want to see our country become an international pariah and war crimes haven.
 
Cypress said:
“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.”

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


www.pbs.org

What the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike, according to experts

Leveling a second strike on the survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat would have been a crime, legal experts say.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
But Obama drone striking a 16-year-old American citizen is okay
 
ZenMode said:
{Sarcasm}
Of course I would. Per Leavitt, they're a threat to the US. Apparently they're going to swim to land and fist fight Americans?

FOX: You said the follow up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors?

LEAVITT: The strike was conducted in self defense to protect Americans
Click to expand...

It's easy to blow up alleged drug boats and then any survivors. It's much easier than addressing WHY we have such a huge market for those drugs. They can blow up every single boat in Venezuela and we'll still have drugs, dealers, and their customers. Want to "protect Americans"? Start with there.
 

US cited controversial law in decision to kill American citizen by drone​


Court documents reveal Obama administration cited law blessing global war against al-Qaida in killing of Anwar al-Awlaki



Obama killed him he didn't get his day in court
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Trump is a dangerous toddler wielding horrific power to hurt and kill. Someone needs to take the war toys away from him. I do not want to see our country become an international pariah and war crimes haven.
Click to expand...
The cocaine and the boat were at the bottom of the Caribbean. I don't know what the purpose would be in ordering a second strike on survivors treading water in the ocean.
 
serenity said:
That really depends on the specific circumstances of the specific event. Life evolves in a perpetual balancing outcome scenario those living are physically existing as eternally separated by mutual hearts beating at the same time their individual brain is navigating space where they are located now in this atmosphere.
Click to expand...
It was a specific circumstance of a specific event.
 
Cypress said:
“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.”

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


www.pbs.org

What the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike, according to experts

Leveling a second strike on the survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat would have been a crime, legal experts say.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
Agreed with Schmitt.

FWIW, the "I was just following orders" excuse doesn't work in modern international and US law. This goes from every person actively involved from the person who pushed the button all the way up the chain of command.

While Admiral Bradley is clearly on the hook for this, the missile operator may not be if they were unaware that there were survivors clinging to the target. If Secretary of War Crimes, Whiskey Pete, gave a "Kill'em All" order, he's on the hook too. If Trump told Whiskey Pete to "Kill'em All", then he, too, is on the hook. Due to SCOTUS, Trump may be absolved of US prosecution, but not from the ICC. As President, he might be protected by diplomatic immunity, but once he leaves office, he might not ever be able to leave the country without risk of arrest and prosecution as a war criminal.

I'm not a lawyer, but as many have pointed out, all military personnel are indoctrinated on the laws of war and lawful vs. unlawful orders. Junior personnel often need to be reminded of those laws since young people are easier to manipulate when it comes to following the rules vs. "this is how we do it in the real world, kid".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top