[T]he Post says Bradley ordered the second strike because the survivors were “legitimate targets,” as they could “theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.” But Goldsmith notes that this would not be an adequate rationale in the face of the laws of war, which the Defense Department binds itself to, and Bradley’s highest duty, says Goldsmith, would have been to refuse to kill the two men regardless of what Hegseth ordered.
I’m sorry, I know that this is a serious matter, but “shakier ground”? Would not “dangerous waters” or “rocky shoals” be the more apt phrase?
Boat bombingMurder spree
Even during war, once men are in the water you retrieve them. Despicable for all involved
Ironically enough, if they wouldn’t have insisted on calling it a war, they’d have gotten away with it
America killing innocent civilians has been a thing since before Obama normalized it to the point everyone stopped caring.
We can’t settle for a do nothing moderate like Biden again, we have to hold these people accountable the second we can
It’s a real shame there were no survivors…
Right, survivors = witnesses.
It doesn’t matter if there were any or not. The issuing an order for no quarter that was acted upon is in of itself the crime.
No it matters a lot because a survivor could have said “hey we’re not drug movers” which is the point of my previous comment.
Oh. Thanks for making it clearer. My point is that the “no quarter” order is the crime no matter what, even if it weren’t acted upon.
Oh absolutely.
Which is, of course, the reason there could be no survivors.
