So, this is a change from the narrative that Pete told the Admiral to "kill them all."

If the commander's guidance were to "destroy" the ship, in doctrinal terms that means something. It means that the target must be rendered in such a way that it is no longer able to perform the tasks that that make it a valid military target. If the Ship was the target, and it was still floating, that means hitting it until it no longer floats. To target distressed seamen is a war crime. To achieve the desired effect on a valid military target is not.

When I was doing this, it was rare for a commander to state that something needed to be destroyed, but there were plenty of times when strikes were carried out against a previously struck target because a few feet of wall remained.

The US also struck narcotics labs in Afghanistan, as they had been linked to Taliban funding. The coalition also used to strike oil tankers in Syria. When OIR started, the coalition went in and blew up the oil wells that ISIS controlled. The result was that it created pools of dirty oil. ISIS would collect this oil and sell it in Turkey. Since the oil trucks were linked to counter-threat finance, they were valid military targets.

"Show me the cocaine. The evidence has been destroyed. Another crime."

If these ships were linked through counter-threat finance, it's not a criminal matter. It's a defense matter.

"And to back up just a bit the US Navy should not even been involved in chasing criminals on the high seas."

It's actually been happening for a long time...

"Hiding murder behind a technicality."

Not at all. It happened every day in Syria and Afghanistan. It is illegal to target non-combatants. It is not illegal to target objects occupied by non-combatants.

I'm pretty sure that during WWII, US subs put another torpedo into Japanese ships to ensure the ship was actually destroyed.

"The Navy could have picked up those seamen and then destroyed the pathetic remains of their boat."

They could have, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

"In the latter case, we'd now know if we were even dealing with "bad guys"."

That happens prior to the strike via positive identification of the target. That's actually the easy part.

"100,000 fentanyl deaths, its wild how upset you get over a gun death, but could careless about 100,000 narco deaths."

And is that any different than alcohol deaths? Other than the fact that these boats have been declared valid military targets, how are they any different than Rum Runners?

"Really? Has someone declared a legal war, or is this all one man's sadistic whim?"

It's doubtful that the people operating the boats fall under the category of combatant, but the ships have been deemed valid military targets based on Trump's EO designating TdA and other transnational organized crime groups as terrorist organizations.

These seamen are more like the dudes driving oil trucks for ISIS.

"Amoral. Want to try for actively immoral?"

Morality is relative and subjective. Legality is not. They are two very different things. I could give a shit about fentanyl coming into the US. If you want to kill yourself taking that shit, it's none of my business. I did counter-drug/counter-transnational organized crime stuff for a while. I thought it was ridiculous back in 2015-2016 when I was in Honduras. Kinda makes me want to go do some coke just to prove a point. But like I said, legality and morality are two very different things. You and Oneironaut seem to be focusing on morality, albeit from opposite sides of the same coin.

"A distinction without any difference, any difference at all."

How so?

"If they survived the destruction of their truck, would you make it a point to go back and kill them?"

Nope. War Crime. Hitting the truck again because the desired effect wasn't achieved the first time? Totally legal-even if it kills the driver. Even if that driver had been previously injured in the initial strike.

#42

I can maybe answer your question, based on previous experience.

These boats were not going to the US. They were going to somewhere like San Andres, or other Island in the Caribbean. From there the drugs would be put on another boat and taken to Gracias a Dios in Honduras, where it would be moved by land west, mostly by people carrying backpacks, until it could be loaded into vehicles who would then use the Pan-American highway to move it into the US. If you're a smuggler, launching a boat from Venezuela with the intent on having it reach the US would be almost impossible, and probably not worth the overhead cost. Especially when you consider that maritime smuggling is the easiest to detect.

"Because the innocent civilians are killed in either case."

The United States killed millions of innocents in their bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. Should that have been illegal?

"There is a strong legal and international obligation for vessels to assist shipwrecked sailors and anyone in distress at sea, codified in laws like 46 U.S.C. 2304 and international treaties, requiring masters to render aid as long as it doesn't place their own ship, crew, or passengers in "serious danger," with penalties for failure."

46 U.S.C. 2304 does not apply to vessels of war, or those owned by the US government. SO, I guess technically, had there been a civilian US ship in the region, they would have been obligated. Although they could probably use the argument that picking up survivors from a valid military target may put their own crew in jeopardy.

"For a start, in the present case the boat was destroyed."

No it wasn't. It was still floating. In my world, that means it's not destroyed.

Like I said, there were times when we had to re-strike targets because a few feet of wall still remained after a previous strike.

"The purpose of any law is not to let evil be done."

Do you think you and Oneironaut can come to a common definition of what constitutes "evil?"

"Yes. That should have been illegal. Probably was."

OK.

How about Berlin and the Fhrerbunker?

How about where I live in Kaiserslautern, which was once a major rail transfer point. The allied bombers destroyed more of the city than they did thee rail yards.

Would it have been worth losing the war, if it meant making sure no civilians were killed?

"Do you never attempt to define what good and evil are? I'm not getting that impression."

Absolutely not.

Your question sort of answers itself.

"And here I am questioning the sanity of your world."

You are able to do this for one reason: "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf."

That was Orwell.

"The U.S. Navy was in no danger from the shipwrecked sailors."

The US Navy has no obligation to rescue distressed seamen under 46 U.S.C. 2304. Nor does the Coast Guard. Or any other ship owned by the US government.

You don't get into concept of good versus evil?

Nope.

That's 100% subjective.

How do you think ISIS viewed the US? As good or evil?

"But you're reducing the question into absurdity."

No, I'm reducing to legality. Something that is understandable and repeatable by any nation under any circumstances.

You may not have a favorable view on the Greater German Reich, but sinking civilian ships that were supporting the allied war effort was not a war crime. It was not illegal. Legality is not based on how you feel at any given moment.

"Been there done that. But while I was standing Watch on the Wall I never felt the need to commit violence for violence sake. And I wasn't interested in doing evil on anyone's behalf."

You were an aircraft maintainer, correct?

Would you have fixed aircraft that, during WWII, were conducting daily raids on cities in Germany and Japan? Raids that killed hundreds of thousands of people?

Or would you have gone the conscientious objector route?

"The first and greatest supporters of laws against crimes in war are professional servicemen. This has always been the case, although you yourself seem to be an exception."

How so?

Is there something I've posted to suggest that war crimes are OK? Or that I'm cool with war crimes?

"Why is ISIS so "Fun" to Stomp?"

ISIS was a bunch of worthless cvn+s. Failed western drug addicts wanting to rape and pillage. If ever there was a culture deserving of being shoved into a gas chamber, it was ISIS. Pure filth.

But we don't do that, and we took great care to make sure that, while Sgt ISIS was going to get a bomb, Ms. ISIS could continue on to marry another Sgt ISIS and keep puking out little ISIS babies that may someday, inshallah, be able to detonate themselves in some way that meaningfully benefits the caliphate.

Very different than the Taliban, who I had a lot more respect for.

"No I am not. Trumpy obviously has his reasons. Just not legal ones."

I'm curious on the question of legality. Why is this not legal? I sort of have my own ideas, but I've never seen a formal judgement.

"Maybe it's not "working" because the War on Drugs will never work if Americans keep demanding it and buying it."

When I was doing this, we estimated that we intercepted 6% of all drugs coming into the US. And that was with a multinational flotilla, accompanied by a sizable air fleet scouring the Caribbean.

I don't know why Trump has a hair up his ass about drugs, but it's an unwinnable war. Because it's not actually a war. It's the US government trying to prevent US citizens from getting stuff they want.

"I would never have been told to kill a helpless enemy sailor floating in the water except maybe as a test. And if I was ordered to then yes I would have refused that order. Because I could pass that test. Could you?"

There is no way in hell I would have ever complied with an order to kill distressed individuals. Not in a million years. I would have hung the bombs and made sure they could not be used. In all likelihood, the survivors were going to die anyways. But if you intentionally kill them, it is a war crime. But if I had been directed to conduct a second strike on the ship, I would have.

I say this agnostic to the current paradigm, but rather as a legal matter. Trump has decided unilaterally that these groups are hostile, whereas it is normally an interagency function led by the DoS. I'm not sure if there is any legitimacy to this designation, and I can almost guarantee you it will be removed in the next administration. When that happens, I would hate to be anyone who was involved in any of this. I think there would be a lot of sleepless nights. I think Pete is crazy. He's flirting with Leavenworth and doesn't even seem to understand it. He may be Trump's boy, but that means he has about three good years left, at most. At which point, he is going to have to face a congress where one side may possibly provide some support, but the other side won't at all.

#90

That's exactly right.

A lot of people have the misconception that Anwar al-Awlaki was denied his constitutional rights as a US citizen when the US killed him. That is incorrect, as he had been designated as a hostile combatant. Being a US citizen doesn't save you from that.

"What acts of mercy will now be extended to Americans?"

The people on that boat were almost certainly all Americans.

So, while finishing my vodka I too shrugged my shoulders, and politely told him ('cause he's a big mofongo), that he should feel guilty about what he did those many years ago.

If you were to ever meet one of the Hamas fighters who killed Israelis on 10/7, would you say the same?