This whole blowing up boats crusade, to me, is less about stopping the flow of drugs into the country, and more about Trump wanting to show the world he is a tough guy. He wants to use the US military to show Putin, Xi and other strongmen - "see, I can flex my muscles too!" It's classic bully behavior. He doesn't want to get into a major war with Putin or Xi, or North Korea, and was even very cautious about striking Iran's nuclear facilities (all of which are very good things, btw), but he still needs to scratch the itch and use the military to beat up on SOMEONE! So boats from Venezuela, purportedly carrying drugs to the US, is a perfect opportunity.
It may be about reviving the Monroe Doctrine. Jon Stewart comedically but, as usual, cogently showed how this might be so. But then I was really concerned when I saw a WH disclosure on President Trump reviving the Monroe Doctrine. Dios Mios!
The Navy Seal comparison isn't the same and not because there's a difference in a life style. During any conflict, if the order is to destroy a building, outpost or whatever, that's what's done, and if not done the first round, a second round is fired, no matter who's in harms way. One can imagine the outcome of destroying an armed ship, only to stop because there were survivors. Midway would have come out very different
Then what were they clinging to? We'll never know because the video won't be released just as when military video isn't released during any operation. For now, I'll go with the statement that a second strike was necessary to destroy the boat. Plus, what would have happened to these two if left alone? Should we send in a rescue?
The Trump administration has outright admitted this.
>> because the video won't be released just as when military video isn't released during any operation.
They can release the video any time they want to. They've had no problem releasing videos of the initial strikes.
>>For now, I'll go with the statement that a second strike was necessary to destroy the boat.
That's not the Trump administration's statement. Their statement was that the boat was destroyed, but that the two survivors remained an "active threat" to America because they could have conceivably, somehow, found a way to recover the drugs, and ultimately pass them on to someone else. It's an extremely weak, almost laughable argument.
>>Plus, what would have happened to these two if left alone?
Hard to say. They may have survived until another boat eventually passed by, or they may have died from any wounds they may have suffered, or perhaps exposure. We'll never know.
>>Should we send in a rescue?
Sure, why not? Fish them out of the ocean and take them into custody. Up until we started blowing up drug-boats a few months, this was standard operating procedure: https://x.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1997122363901554743
Drug smugglers are, in fact, not terrorists. You realize there are legal definitions of these things, right?
But let's play your game for a minute... President Trump just issued a full pardon for one of the most notorious drug smugglers alive -- a guy responsible for bringing MANY TIMES the drugs in the United States that these bottom-level boat smugglers could have ever conceivably brought there.
Are you therefore saying the Trump just freed a major terrorist?
I hear you Bernie and you are probably right. I personally don't have any sympathy for these guys getting blown out of the water seeing what drugs have done to inner cities across our country. Drug cartels have infiltrated our country with their thugs, and they terrorize and kidnap.
No one needs to have sympathy for drug smugglers (I sure don't). But government ethics and the rule of law have to account for something.
One thing that gets me is that Trump just pardoned a MAJOR drug trafficker responsible for bringing infinitely more drugs into our country than these 80 or so drug-boat thugs could have in a lifetime (and there's real doubt their shipments were even headed to the United States in the first place). And I've seen next to no one, who's been justifying the boat-bombings based on the drug problem, express any problems with the pardon.
President Trump's attack dog, aka Mr. Bill O'Reilly, said he was OK with pardoning Honduras' pres. because someone in the WH told him that the pardon made it much more likely that a like-minded, "traditional" candidate would defeat the communist candidate in Honduras' presidential election. Mr. O'Reilly didn't bother to offer any evidence that the communist candidate may well win without the pardon or how the pardon would play a positive role for the "traditional" candidate. It seems that Mr. O'Reilly didn't think to ask his unnamed source in the WH for that evidence. Apparently, Mr. O'Reilly places his loyalty to President Trump above his desire to see drug trafficking fought.
It would be interesting to know where this decision came from and how it was derived. It appears Asfura is holding a slight lead in Honduras. I'm not sure how the Pardon of Hernández could have impacted the election, but my guess is that this was another hip-shot decision. We all know that past American presidents influenced South American politics. What I find interesting is that the past decade or two we have been less influential in affairs in South America (less than previous decades) and it seems a tide has turned with more free-market leaders emerging versus the socialist/communist leaders that were in power.
The real concern for me is Maduro in Venezuela who is moving closer to Russia and China. Both of these countries won't give Maduro military help even though they have diplomatic and energy deals. Maduro is extremely vulnerable, and Trump could have avoided the Honduras issue and concentrated on getting rid of Maduro.
"I'm not sure how the Pardon of Hernández could have impacted the election, but my guess is that this was another hip-shot decision."
EXACTAMENTE!
In one simple sentence, Bill O'Reilly casually mentioned the supposed rationale that he apparently received from a WH unnamed source. He didn't bother to question the rationale's validity. He's a hack.
And he repeatedly tells his listeners that he's the only source of the truth. In effect, he's telling listeners to relax their critical thinking when viewing him. Does he believe what he says? Perhumps. But who cares what he believes.
When President Trump was asked about the pardon, he said that Honduras' pres. was railroaded by the Biden Administration.
My question is how and when will Congress exhibit some of their powers on some of the decisions, controversial even, the Federal Government took advantage of? Congress' power is eroding or is it they go along to get along? Sharon H.
So, when Obama ordered over 1,600 strikes, killing over 6,000 people, over 800 of them civilians including over 100 children, were you outraged then? From soldiers who participated in those strikes, there were sometimes 2nd and 3rd strikes to assure that the target was completely destroyed along with any survivors.
I can't speak for Bernie, but I did indeed have a problem with the excessive collateral damage incurred from Obama's drone strikes against targeted members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations. Lots of people did, especially on the political right.
A significant difference (that everyone who brings up this comparison ignores) is that those targets, by legal definition (not just some slang tossed out there), were terrorists -- people actively plotting and carrying out violence against the United States, U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
Drug-smugglers are not terrorists by any legal definition. They're not enemy combatants by any legal definition. They have protections, by law, that terrorist groups do not. There hasn't even been a serious legal argument presented that we can just blow drug-smugglers up in international waters, let alone go back and kill the survivors.
Back when President Obama was killing terrorists with drones - many of the strikes were strictly surgical - Fox News anti-Obama screecher Monica Crowley harshly criticized President Obama for doing this. Why? Because, she said, we should apprehend these terrorists and get intelligence from them. A lot of these pundits join a lot of politicians in having no shame. By that logic, she should be apoplectic at the Trump Administration for not seizing and interrogating survivors of boat strikes.
Yeah, Monica Crowley has proven, like many others, that she's a complete joke.
And really, what you're describing has traditionally been how America has fought the drug-war: Capturing and questioning low-level carriers/dealers to trace the supply-chains back to the big players.
Blowing up the boats and killing the crew members destroys that opportunity. These low-level drug-smugglers are expendable, as far as their bosses are concerned. The bosses will just adjust their methods.
The notion that these operations are making a meaningful dent in the volume of drugs coming into our country just doesn't hold up.
I completely disagree with that assessment. The drugs these smugglers bring result in thousands of American deaths - yes, those Americans bear responsibility as well, but the cartels and supporting governments are deliberately targeting US citizens and are just as much terrorists as those targeted by Obama. As to legality, maybe you need to consider the following:
A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime
It's not "my" assessment. It's the law. Pete Hegseth, or someone else, simply calling someone a "terrorist" doesn't legally make them a terrorist. Again, there are specific, legal definitions of these things.
>>The drugs these smugglers bring result in thousands of American deaths - yes
I'm very much anti-drug-smugglers. No one has to convince they are bad people doing very bad things. On a separate note, the boat in question was not headed to America, and based on its destination country, the drugs would have likely ended up in Europe, not the United States.
>> are just as much terrorists as those targeted by Obama.
They are, in fact, not. Not by any legal definition. You can certainly hate them as much as you hate Islamic terrorists who blow up innocent people, or think they are no better, but the law (not rhetorical slang) is what matters when it comes targeting individuals for assassination. Obama's targets fell under the AUMF (signed into law after 9/11). That law doesn't apply to what Trump is doing.
>> Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections
That is simply incorrect. They have legal protections through international human rights law, and the law of the sea. These individuals are supposed to receive due process. The same goes for pirates.
The situation changes when we're talking about a hostage situation, where there is an immediate threat to human life (the hostage's). That obviously doesn't apply to these drug smugglers.
>>you cannot commit a war crime against them.
It would not technically be a war crime, only because there has been no official war declaration of war against these people, or their country. That would, instead, make going back and killing the survivors criminal murder.
Here is an excellent expert-explainer of this situation, which includes why many of the things you've cited don't apply:
Sorry John, your analysis is incorrect re: > Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections
"That is simply incorrect. They have legal protections through international human rights law, and the law of the sea. These individuals are supposed to receive due process. The same goes for pirates".
If their vessels are not flagged, UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110 are very clear that those operating the vessels are not afforded any protections. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
These boats are indeed engaged in the illicit activity of narcotics trafficking and given that their vessels are not flagged, they are not due any protections - human rights or otherwise.
No, it's correct. And I brought the receipts. The correct and applicable laws are cited in the piece I linked to, along with the proper context, particularly in how it relates to this incident, as spelled out by experts in the field. It mirrors the analysis of virtually every expert on international law that isn't directly linked to the Trump administration.
>>If their vessels are not flagged, UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110 are very clear that those operating the vessels are not afforded any protections.
And again, the previous link I provided is very clear and informative on this topic.
I would highly recommend you read Andy McCarthy's pieces on this topic. He's well known for (by his own admission) bending over backwards to make a legal defense for even Trump's most controversial actions. He can't find a way to do it with this.
No John, it is not. None of the links you provide cite the only law that applies to this specific situation - UNCLOS. None of the other laws apply even though you and others may want them to. UNCLOS very clearly states that an unflagged vessel is afforded no protections and that lethal force may be used when a vessel engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking. That's it, period. It does not make any mention about armed conflict, terrorists, cartels etc. It simply states that if a vessel engages in narcotics trafficking, which these vessels are clearly doing, then lethal force may be used.
At least two prominent figures with knowledge of the military operations - I forget who - said that on at least one prior occasion the survivors of a recent boat strike in the Caribbean were picked up by our forces and returned to their country of origin. HUH?
If the survivors were drug runners, why weren't they taken into custody, interrogated and prosecuted? This makes no sense.
There was a lapse of about 40 minutes between the first and the second strike on that boat. I'd like to know what the JAG advised the admiral during that lapse.
BERNIE, this is a subject matter that most of the Democrats are hoping President Trump will lose on this issue. I thank President Trump for finally doing something to protect this hemisphere against this drug issue. they are terrorist and death to all terrorist!
Seems to me that Trump ego once again missed an opportunity for consensus. In this instance, to build a case ahead of his military actions by getting congressional approval. And if he didn’t get approval from congress, then show what he knew to the American people and let the chips fall where they may. As far as a defense of the killing of wreckage survivors, the explanations appear dubious, at best. Trump said, “release all the video” and Hegseth says, “we’re reviewing it.” Congress has every right to demand and get answers, even if it’s only along party lines. Can we expect to eventually see Hegseth, and perhaps others, clinging to wreckage of their own as the SS “I’m the president so I can do what I want” sails on without them?
Regarding the explanations given, my friend, Mike Nelson (a retired Army Special Forces officer, who I've interviewed for this website), wrote a clarifying piece on this for The Dispatch:
"Bradley’s testimony seems to posit that because the two survivors may have tried to upright the debris, they intended to recover the illicit cargo, continue their mission, signal to other drug craft (which were reportedly not in the immediate proximity), or radio them (with radios they did not have), and therefore posed an immediate threat to the American people."
Yeah, I saw that. Most people know a load of crapola when they hear it. But half will never admit it. They're too busy in a coverup because the actor(s) came from their side of the isle.
Spot on Bernie.
This whole blowing up boats crusade, to me, is less about stopping the flow of drugs into the country, and more about Trump wanting to show the world he is a tough guy. He wants to use the US military to show Putin, Xi and other strongmen - "see, I can flex my muscles too!" It's classic bully behavior. He doesn't want to get into a major war with Putin or Xi, or North Korea, and was even very cautious about striking Iran's nuclear facilities (all of which are very good things, btw), but he still needs to scratch the itch and use the military to beat up on SOMEONE! So boats from Venezuela, purportedly carrying drugs to the US, is a perfect opportunity.
I think you're 100% right.
It may be about reviving the Monroe Doctrine. Jon Stewart comedically but, as usual, cogently showed how this might be so. But then I was really concerned when I saw a WH disclosure on President Trump reviving the Monroe Doctrine. Dios Mios!
You're giving Trump a lot of credit assuming he actually knows what the Monroe Doctrine is, and what it means.....
I think Stephen Miller controls President Trump's writing digits or auto-pen. lol
I have speculated much the same - Vance and Miller are running the show behind the clownish showman.
The Navy Seal comparison isn't the same and not because there's a difference in a life style. During any conflict, if the order is to destroy a building, outpost or whatever, that's what's done, and if not done the first round, a second round is fired, no matter who's in harms way. One can imagine the outcome of destroying an armed ship, only to stop because there were survivors. Midway would have come out very different
The drug boat had, in fact, been destroyed.
A second strike was then ordered for the specific purpose of killing the two survivors who were clinging to the debris.
Then what were they clinging to? We'll never know because the video won't be released just as when military video isn't released during any operation. For now, I'll go with the statement that a second strike was necessary to destroy the boat. Plus, what would have happened to these two if left alone? Should we send in a rescue?
>>Then what were they clinging to?
Debris from the boat. Wreckage.
>>We'll never know
The Trump administration has outright admitted this.
>> because the video won't be released just as when military video isn't released during any operation.
They can release the video any time they want to. They've had no problem releasing videos of the initial strikes.
>>For now, I'll go with the statement that a second strike was necessary to destroy the boat.
That's not the Trump administration's statement. Their statement was that the boat was destroyed, but that the two survivors remained an "active threat" to America because they could have conceivably, somehow, found a way to recover the drugs, and ultimately pass them on to someone else. It's an extremely weak, almost laughable argument.
>>Plus, what would have happened to these two if left alone?
Hard to say. They may have survived until another boat eventually passed by, or they may have died from any wounds they may have suffered, or perhaps exposure. We'll never know.
>>Should we send in a rescue?
Sure, why not? Fish them out of the ocean and take them into custody. Up until we started blowing up drug-boats a few months, this was standard operating procedure: https://x.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1997122363901554743
If there were two survivors, then the drugs they had with them also survived.
Nonsensical.
I don't have a problem with the blowing up the drug running boats period.
What about going back, after the boats had been blown up, and killing the survivors who are clinging to the debris?
John, they are terrorist!
Drug smugglers are, in fact, not terrorists. You realize there are legal definitions of these things, right?
But let's play your game for a minute... President Trump just issued a full pardon for one of the most notorious drug smugglers alive -- a guy responsible for bringing MANY TIMES the drugs in the United States that these bottom-level boat smugglers could have ever conceivably brought there.
Are you therefore saying the Trump just freed a major terrorist?
Why did President Trump do it?
Because the major terrorist (by your definition) wrote Trump a love letter, in which he called Trump "Your Excellency."
"Are you therefore saying the Trump just freed a major terrorist?"
By President Trump's designation, he did. And Mr. O'Reilly was OK with it - see my comment below.
I put no stock in anything O'Reilly says.
It's no wonder that Mr. O'Reilly referred to you at the end of Bernie's interview with him as "that nut Daly." Lol
I hear you Bernie and you are probably right. I personally don't have any sympathy for these guys getting blown out of the water seeing what drugs have done to inner cities across our country. Drug cartels have infiltrated our country with their thugs, and they terrorize and kidnap.
No one needs to have sympathy for drug smugglers (I sure don't). But government ethics and the rule of law have to account for something.
One thing that gets me is that Trump just pardoned a MAJOR drug trafficker responsible for bringing infinitely more drugs into our country than these 80 or so drug-boat thugs could have in a lifetime (and there's real doubt their shipments were even headed to the United States in the first place). And I've seen next to no one, who's been justifying the boat-bombings based on the drug problem, express any problems with the pardon.
President Trump's attack dog, aka Mr. Bill O'Reilly, said he was OK with pardoning Honduras' pres. because someone in the WH told him that the pardon made it much more likely that a like-minded, "traditional" candidate would defeat the communist candidate in Honduras' presidential election. Mr. O'Reilly didn't bother to offer any evidence that the communist candidate may well win without the pardon or how the pardon would play a positive role for the "traditional" candidate. It seems that Mr. O'Reilly didn't think to ask his unnamed source in the WH for that evidence. Apparently, Mr. O'Reilly places his loyalty to President Trump above his desire to see drug trafficking fought.
It would be interesting to know where this decision came from and how it was derived. It appears Asfura is holding a slight lead in Honduras. I'm not sure how the Pardon of Hernández could have impacted the election, but my guess is that this was another hip-shot decision. We all know that past American presidents influenced South American politics. What I find interesting is that the past decade or two we have been less influential in affairs in South America (less than previous decades) and it seems a tide has turned with more free-market leaders emerging versus the socialist/communist leaders that were in power.
The real concern for me is Maduro in Venezuela who is moving closer to Russia and China. Both of these countries won't give Maduro military help even though they have diplomatic and energy deals. Maduro is extremely vulnerable, and Trump could have avoided the Honduras issue and concentrated on getting rid of Maduro.
"I'm not sure how the Pardon of Hernández could have impacted the election, but my guess is that this was another hip-shot decision."
EXACTAMENTE!
In one simple sentence, Bill O'Reilly casually mentioned the supposed rationale that he apparently received from a WH unnamed source. He didn't bother to question the rationale's validity. He's a hack.
And he repeatedly tells his listeners that he's the only source of the truth. In effect, he's telling listeners to relax their critical thinking when viewing him. Does he believe what he says? Perhumps. But who cares what he believes.
When President Trump was asked about the pardon, he said that Honduras' pres. was railroaded by the Biden Administration.
My question is how and when will Congress exhibit some of their powers on some of the decisions, controversial even, the Federal Government took advantage of? Congress' power is eroding or is it they go along to get along? Sharon H.
So, when Obama ordered over 1,600 strikes, killing over 6,000 people, over 800 of them civilians including over 100 children, were you outraged then? From soldiers who participated in those strikes, there were sometimes 2nd and 3rd strikes to assure that the target was completely destroyed along with any survivors.
I can't speak for Bernie, but I did indeed have a problem with the excessive collateral damage incurred from Obama's drone strikes against targeted members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations. Lots of people did, especially on the political right.
A significant difference (that everyone who brings up this comparison ignores) is that those targets, by legal definition (not just some slang tossed out there), were terrorists -- people actively plotting and carrying out violence against the United States, U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
Drug-smugglers are not terrorists by any legal definition. They're not enemy combatants by any legal definition. They have protections, by law, that terrorist groups do not. There hasn't even been a serious legal argument presented that we can just blow drug-smugglers up in international waters, let alone go back and kill the survivors.
Back when President Obama was killing terrorists with drones - many of the strikes were strictly surgical - Fox News anti-Obama screecher Monica Crowley harshly criticized President Obama for doing this. Why? Because, she said, we should apprehend these terrorists and get intelligence from them. A lot of these pundits join a lot of politicians in having no shame. By that logic, she should be apoplectic at the Trump Administration for not seizing and interrogating survivors of boat strikes.
Yeah, Monica Crowley has proven, like many others, that she's a complete joke.
And really, what you're describing has traditionally been how America has fought the drug-war: Capturing and questioning low-level carriers/dealers to trace the supply-chains back to the big players.
Blowing up the boats and killing the crew members destroys that opportunity. These low-level drug-smugglers are expendable, as far as their bosses are concerned. The bosses will just adjust their methods.
The notion that these operations are making a meaningful dent in the volume of drugs coming into our country just doesn't hold up.
I completely disagree with that assessment. The drugs these smugglers bring result in thousands of American deaths - yes, those Americans bear responsibility as well, but the cartels and supporting governments are deliberately targeting US citizens and are just as much terrorists as those targeted by Obama. As to legality, maybe you need to consider the following:
A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime
>>I completely disagree with that assessment.
It's not "my" assessment. It's the law. Pete Hegseth, or someone else, simply calling someone a "terrorist" doesn't legally make them a terrorist. Again, there are specific, legal definitions of these things.
>>The drugs these smugglers bring result in thousands of American deaths - yes
I'm very much anti-drug-smugglers. No one has to convince they are bad people doing very bad things. On a separate note, the boat in question was not headed to America, and based on its destination country, the drugs would have likely ended up in Europe, not the United States.
>> are just as much terrorists as those targeted by Obama.
They are, in fact, not. Not by any legal definition. You can certainly hate them as much as you hate Islamic terrorists who blow up innocent people, or think they are no better, but the law (not rhetorical slang) is what matters when it comes targeting individuals for assassination. Obama's targets fell under the AUMF (signed into law after 9/11). That law doesn't apply to what Trump is doing.
>> Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections
That is simply incorrect. They have legal protections through international human rights law, and the law of the sea. These individuals are supposed to receive due process. The same goes for pirates.
The situation changes when we're talking about a hostage situation, where there is an immediate threat to human life (the hostage's). That obviously doesn't apply to these drug smugglers.
>>you cannot commit a war crime against them.
It would not technically be a war crime, only because there has been no official war declaration of war against these people, or their country. That would, instead, make going back and killing the survivors criminal murder.
Here is an excellent expert-explainer of this situation, which includes why many of the things you've cited don't apply:
https://www.justsecurity.org/126156/expert-qa-on-the-u-s-boat-strikes
Sorry John, your analysis is incorrect re: > Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections
"That is simply incorrect. They have legal protections through international human rights law, and the law of the sea. These individuals are supposed to receive due process. The same goes for pirates".
If their vessels are not flagged, UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110 are very clear that those operating the vessels are not afforded any protections. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
These boats are indeed engaged in the illicit activity of narcotics trafficking and given that their vessels are not flagged, they are not due any protections - human rights or otherwise.
>>Sorry John, your analysis is incorrect
No, it's correct. And I brought the receipts. The correct and applicable laws are cited in the piece I linked to, along with the proper context, particularly in how it relates to this incident, as spelled out by experts in the field. It mirrors the analysis of virtually every expert on international law that isn't directly linked to the Trump administration.
>>If their vessels are not flagged, UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110 are very clear that those operating the vessels are not afforded any protections.
Wrong (analysis and links provided): https://www.google.com/search?q=Do+UNCLOS+Articles+92%2C+94%2C+110+legalize+the+blowing+up+of+drug+boats+in+international+waters%3F&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=d44b221d688bac1f&sxsrf=AE3TifNduJ2WdWVWRDG0T7m5GRxL1PbBnA%3A1765393026001&ei=gcI5aeztPILKkPIPjLuf6As&ved=2ahUKEwisstDB2bORAxUCJUQIHYzdB70Q4dUDegQIBRAN&uact=5&oq=Do+UNCLOS+Articles+92%2C+94%2C+110+legalize+the+blowing+up+of+drug+boats+in+international+waters%3F&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiXURvIFVOQ0xPUyBBcnRpY2xlcyA5MiwgOTQsIDExMCBsZWdhbGl6ZSB0aGUgYmxvd2luZyB1cCBvZiBkcnVnIGJvYXRzIGluIGludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgd2F0ZXJzP0ij5wFQ_SZYo-UBcBV4AZABApgBtQOgAZdCqgELNDQuMjkuMS4wLjG4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKYAjSgAq4nwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICBBAjGCfCAgoQIxiABBgnGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYkQIYigXCAggQLhiABBixA8ICEBAuGIAEGNEDGEMYxwEYigXCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARiKBcICBRAuGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgoQIxjwBRgnGJ4GwgIWEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYQxiDARjHARiKBcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICEBAjGPAFGIAEGCcYyQIYigXCAgUQIRifBcICBRAhGKsCwgIFEAAY7wXCAggQABiABBiiBMICBRAhGJIDmAMAiAYBkAYCkgcFMjEuMzGgB52GArIHBDguMzG4B7AmwgcKMC45LjM1LjYuMsgHjgKACAA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
>>The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance....
Again, wrong (analysis and links provided): https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+international+maritime+organization+legalize+bombing+drug+boats%3F&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=d44b221d688bac1f&sxsrf=AE3TifNcD1DCvjmSpdMtWmB-2m4Qw9fItw%3A1765393166599&ei=DsM5aeqmJLOZkPIPtsXiwQE&oq=Does&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBERvZXMqAggAMgQQIxgnMgoQIxjwBRgnGJ4GMgQQIxgnMgsQABiABBiRAhiKBTILEAAYgAQYkQIYigUyCBAAGIAEGLEDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyCBAAGIAEGLEDMgUQABiABEjpF1AAWPkCcAB4AJABAZgB5gGgAcoEqgEFMS4yLjG4AQHIAQD4AQGYAgOgAqADwgIKECMYgAQYJxiKBcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgUQLhiABMICCxAuGIAEGNEDGMcBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYgwEYxwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxjRAxjHAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBmAMAkgcDMC4zoAflRrIHAzAuM7gHoAPCBwcyLTEuMC4yyAcugAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
And again, the previous link I provided is very clear and informative on this topic.
I would highly recommend you read Andy McCarthy's pieces on this topic. He's well known for (by his own admission) bending over backwards to make a legal defense for even Trump's most controversial actions. He can't find a way to do it with this.
No John, it is not. None of the links you provide cite the only law that applies to this specific situation - UNCLOS. None of the other laws apply even though you and others may want them to. UNCLOS very clearly states that an unflagged vessel is afforded no protections and that lethal force may be used when a vessel engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking. That's it, period. It does not make any mention about armed conflict, terrorists, cartels etc. It simply states that if a vessel engages in narcotics trafficking, which these vessels are clearly doing, then lethal force may be used.
At least two prominent figures with knowledge of the military operations - I forget who - said that on at least one prior occasion the survivors of a recent boat strike in the Caribbean were picked up by our forces and returned to their country of origin. HUH?
If the survivors were drug runners, why weren't they taken into custody, interrogated and prosecuted? This makes no sense.
There was a lapse of about 40 minutes between the first and the second strike on that boat. I'd like to know what the JAG advised the admiral during that lapse.
BERNIE, this is a subject matter that most of the Democrats are hoping President Trump will lose on this issue. I thank President Trump for finally doing something to protect this hemisphere against this drug issue. they are terrorist and death to all terrorist!
Trump literally just pardoned one of the most notorious living drug smugglers. Thus, according to you, he just freed a major terrorist.
I look forward to your explanation.
Seems to me that Trump ego once again missed an opportunity for consensus. In this instance, to build a case ahead of his military actions by getting congressional approval. And if he didn’t get approval from congress, then show what he knew to the American people and let the chips fall where they may. As far as a defense of the killing of wreckage survivors, the explanations appear dubious, at best. Trump said, “release all the video” and Hegseth says, “we’re reviewing it.” Congress has every right to demand and get answers, even if it’s only along party lines. Can we expect to eventually see Hegseth, and perhaps others, clinging to wreckage of their own as the SS “I’m the president so I can do what I want” sails on without them?
Regarding the explanations given, my friend, Mike Nelson (a retired Army Special Forces officer, who I've interviewed for this website), wrote a clarifying piece on this for The Dispatch:
"Bradley’s testimony seems to posit that because the two survivors may have tried to upright the debris, they intended to recover the illicit cargo, continue their mission, signal to other drug craft (which were reportedly not in the immediate proximity), or radio them (with radios they did not have), and therefore posed an immediate threat to the American people."
https://thedispatch.com/article/pete-hegseth-september-strike-caribbean-bradley-testimony/
Yeah, I saw that. Most people know a load of crapola when they hear it. But half will never admit it. They're too busy in a coverup because the actor(s) came from their side of the isle.
BTW. Always loved Mike Nelson in Sea Hunt!