ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
These are rules of War. They don't apply to combating terrorists. If they did they would have been applied to the 540 drone strikes that Obama authorized, with the full knowledge that there would be collateral damage including innocent American citizens.
Hegseth Ordered Second Strike to Kill Caribbean Boat Survivors: Report
The United States changed its protocols after Secretary Hegseth allegedly told officials to "kill everybody" onboard an a Caribbean vessel in September.www.military.com
Unlawful Orders and Killing Shipwrecked Boat Strike Survivors: An Expert Backgrounder
An expert backgrounder on the reported Hegseth "no quarter" order to kill everyone aboard a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean on Sept. 2.www.justsecurity.org
Here, suffice it to note that the DoD Law of War Manual is categorical: “It is … prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations.” The Manual further emphasizes that the rule “also applies during non-international armed conflict” (§ 5.4.7).A closely related prohibition implicated in the Sept. 2 strikes, which also applies in both international and non-international armed conflict, is on attacking those who are hors de combat, a condition that includes those who are “defenseless” because they are shipwrecked (see ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law study, rule 47 and related practice). As the DoD Law of War Manual explains (§ 5.9.4),Shipwrecked combatants include those who have been shipwrecked from any cause…. Persons who have been incapacitated by … shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack. In order to receive protection as hors de combat, the person must be wholly disabled from fighting.The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations similarly provides, “Intentional attack on a combatant who is known to be hors de combat constitutes a grave breach of the law of armed conflict” (§ 8.2.3). Indeed, as noted in the Newport Manual on the Law of Naval Warfare published by the U.S. Naval War College’s Stockton Center, Geneva Convention II sets forth a legal framework for the humane treatment and protection of victims of armed conflict at sea. The Convention requires parties to the conflict to, inter alia, respect and protect individuals falling within the scope of the Convention “who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked.” Parties to a conflict are thus required, after each engagement and without delay, to “take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick,” without discriminating between their own and enemy personnel.To be clear, there is no exception to the prohibition on attacking those who are hors de combat due to being shipwrecked because they might escape or otherwise receive rescue assistance from their forces. The only basis for treating them as subject to continued attack is if they are, in fact, not hors de combat because they continue to fight.
Consider the target in the drone strikes against these boats being used to smuggle drugs by terrorists.
The target wasn't the boats. There's no shortage of replacement for the boats.
The target wasn't the drugs. Venezuela and other countries in South and Central America (and Mexico) produce illegal drugs on an industrial scale.
The target was the terrorists driving the boats full of drugs. The goal was to kill them.
Not capture them.
Not arrest them.
Kill them.
That's what we do with terrorists.
