YARPYou finally agree!
A quite reasonable argument. It could very well be the reason.They have intercepted communication between the survivor and other drug smugglers. The boat was disabled but not destroyed The order was to destroy the boat. They did not want the drugs being picked up by other smugglers.
YARPSource?
THAT's stretching it thin!Right, there always being a chance the intelligence got it wrong.
You have to ask? It's obvious he never did.Did you serve, Marty?
He has all the authorization he needs. ANY nation has the right to destroy pirate ships and smuggling ships.There was a congressional authorization for military force against AL Quaeda and it's affiliates.
Trump has no authorization. You're just asking me unilaterally to let him decide
So...you're a robot. You automatically believed what the White House said when it was Biden or Obama.So you admit there was a second strike when your boyfriend Earl denied there was.
You all need to get your stories straight.
You automatically believe what the White House says. You're a robot.
Nope.We are in a state of war with the "narco terrorist" organization the same way we were in a state of war with Al Qaeda. They are both terrorist organizations. We definitely are not at war with Venezuela.
MAGAt cracker retards aren't part of human intelligence either. Sad.We are not a part of the military intelligence.
...and loaded to gunwales with cargo in bales.Because pleasure craft always have four 400 hp engines and cruise full speed at night on smuggling routes with no running lights
![]()
“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.
![]()
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
YARP. It's not about 'backtracking'. It's not about a count. It's about stopping the smuggling before that stuff enters the country and starts killing people. Your word games change NOTHING, Clanker.You said no to the whole question, and only belatedly now want to backtrack to edit your response and claim you were only saying no to only part of the question.
...and burning oil slick.Turn 'em' into an oil slick.
I think the White House has admitted there was a second strike on the survivors, but they're trying to shift the blame from Hegswith to a fall guy who is some admiral.
Not a state of war. It is legal to destroy the ships of pirates and smugglers.Nope.
Presidents Bush and Obama legally operated under the congressional GWOT military authorization to attack Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Trump is unilaterally claiming the right use American armed forces against drug dealers in an undeclared state of war.
So you admit you have no intelligence.MAGAt cracker retards aren't part of human intelligence either. Sad.
Doesn't change a thing, Sybil.Good. That will force the defense to produce evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want your cocaine, Sybil?What strikes me as odd is the fact not a single fentanyl pill has been produced as evidence by the Trump administration.
These facts are contrary to what We, the People, are being told by the Trump administration:
1. Most fentanyl comes from Mexico
2. Like Trump's Honduran friend Hernandez, Venezuela's Maduro mostly produces cocaine. Maybe Maduro didn't pay a bribe to Trump like Hernandez?
3. The boats being sunk are incapable of reaching US shores. They are all headed for Caribbean islands where they could be interdicted upon docking.
{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