@#1 ... The core questions according to the article:
What would be so sensitive about the portion that shows a second set of strikes that wasn't sensitive about the initial strikes?
And why has it taken nearly a week to review that release, when it took just hours to review the release of the initial strikes? ...
Yup.
Also, if I may add, Sen Cotton has been saying things along the lines of ~the survivors of the initial strike trying to turn the boat over and continue on their mission.~
If that were the case, does that not inherently criticize the capability of the munition used to take out that boat?
Asked differently, if there actually were enough flotsam remaining of the boat for the two to continue their mission, either the munition was too weak for the task (imo, doubtful), or the munition missed the boat (also doubtful, as the initial video showed).
Could Sen Cotton be trying to mischaracterize what happened leading up to the second strike to protect Pres Trump?
#17 & #18
Yep. EVERYONE who issued or followed illegal orders is guilty. The charges need to happen all the way up and down the chain of command. There are no excuses for issuing or failing to refuse illegal orders, particularly when the illegal order is literally in the manual as the prime example of an illegal order.
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
media.defense.gov