Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

[DaisyDay]

WaPo: Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.​

​

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.​

​

Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.​

 

[ranunculus]

WaPo: Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.​

​

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.​

​

Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.​

I had a feeling it was only a matter of time for something like this to come up when last week they renamed the department of war to the department of war crimes

 

[essentialsaltes]

WaPo: Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all

​

I knew Mr. Crusader's Deus Vult tattoo was gonna be a problem. Now he's gone straight to

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

 

[essentialsaltes]

FAA warns all pilots of risks of flying over Venezuela over ‘worsening security situation’​

The message said the unspecified threats “could pose a potential risk to aircraft at all altitudes” as well planes taking off and landing in the country and even aircraft on the ground.

Aircraft on the ground? What's gonna happen? Something gonna fall out of the sky on top of them or something?

Trump truths the 'closure' of airspace above and surrounding Venezuela.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A top Republican senator, Roger Wicker, has joined his Democratic counterpart in calling for "vigorous oversight to determine the facts" of allegations that the military intentionally killed survivors of a boat strike.

"The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances," said Sen. Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In a post on X on Friday, Hegseth said the strikes were intended to be "lethal, kinetic strikes."

"Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command," Hegseth said.

 

[RDKirk]

A top Republican senator, Roger Wicker, has joined his Democratic counterpart in calling for "vigorous oversight to determine the facts" of allegations that the military intentionally killed survivors of a boat strike.

"The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances," said Sen. Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In a post on X on Friday, Hegseth said the strikes were intended to be "lethal, kinetic strikes."

"Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command," Hegseth said.

That's kind of a deflection from what Congress should really be doing right now.

Congress should be discussing whether their "War on Terror" resolutions cover Trump's actions in and around Venezuela as Trump claims they do.

By focusing on the more clear-cut issue of that "double tap" (which is something the Pentagon should be focused on), the Congress is, by default, subtly accepting Trump's claim that he's still operating within Congressional guidelines.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's kind of a deflection from what Congress should really be doing right now.

Congress should be discussing whether their "War on Terror" resolutions cover Trump's actions in and around Venezuela as Trump claims they do.

By focusing on the more clear-cut issue of that "double tap" (which is something the Pentagon should be focused on), the Congress is, by default, subtly accepting Trump's claim that he's still operating within Congressional guidelines.

I generally agree and I have the same concern that you express about subtly accepting the notion that any of this operation is within the 2001 AUMF. The overall Venezuela operation is not popular with the people. I suspect Congress can be turned toward the "Venezuela is not covered by AUMF" resolutions that have failed so far, but hearings on the "double tap" are a way to start that will eventually broaden. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are Senators who are using this as an entry path so they can publicly oppose the whole operation.)

 

[RDKirk]

I generally agree and I have the same concern that you express about subtly accepting the notion that any of this operation is within the 2001 AUMF. The overall Venezuela operation is not popular with the people. I suspect Congress can be turned toward the "Venezuela is not covered by AUMF" resolutions that have failed so far, but hearings on the "double tap" are a way to start that will eventually broaden. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are Senators who are using this as an entry path so they can publicly oppose the whole operation.)

As I said, the Pentagon itself should have both feet on the "double tap" accusation because that would be a clear-cut violation of the Law of Armed Conflict at the basic troop level. The Congress should not be involved at the level of figuring out who pulled the trigger...their involvement would come from how the Pentagon resolves that violation of the LOAC (presuming it actually happened). We don't need Congress investigating a problem the Pentagon is already charged by law to investigate.

But to the extent it keeps Congress from discussing the extent of the resolutions they've passed, it delays the resolution of the problem only they can resolve.

 

[DaisyDay]

As I said, the Pentagon itself should have both feet on the "double tap" accusation because that would be a clear-cut violation of the Law of Armed Conflict at the basic troop level. The Congress should not be involved at the level of figuring out who pulled the trigger...their involvement would come from how the Pentagon resolves that violation of the LOAC (presuming it actually happened). We don't need Congress investigating a problem the Pentagon is already charged by law to investigate.

But to the extent it keeps Congress from discussing the extent of the resolutions they've passed, it delays the resolution of the problem only they can resolve.

What would/could the Pentagon do if the order came from the Sec. of Defense and the CIC?

 

[RDKirk]

What would/could the Pentagon do if the order came from the Sec. of Defense and the CIC?

Identify that as a fact.

But as I said before, I severely doubt the Pentagon passed orders worded as such.

Unless--and I wouldn't put this past anyone in uniform if they're angry or frightened enough--they were applying "malicious compliance"--essentially "fragging" the civilian leadership: "Let's write this down exactly the way he said it."

 

[Nithavela]

Any over/under on when the USA will be officialy at war with Venezuela?

I'll throw in my hat and say "Christmas Eve".

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said, the Pentagon itself should have both feet on the "double tap" accusation because that would be a clear-cut violation of the Law of Armed Conflict at the basic troop level. The Congress should not be involved at the level of figuring out who pulled the trigger...their involvement would come from how the Pentagon resolves that violation of the LOAC (presuming it actually happened). We don't need Congress investigating a problem the Pentagon is already charged by law to investigate.

But to the extent it keeps Congress from discussing the extent of the resolutions they've passed, it delays the resolution of the problem only they can resolve.

Are there any investigators left (or their supervisors) who would take such an action?

 

[RDKirk]

Are there any investigators left (or their supervisors) who would take such an action?

The military is especially designed to "continue the march" if the leader falls.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Just like the Iraqi oil fields that paid for the war!

I was not for that war either. It was started based on a lie. Just like Trump starting trouble with Venezuela. .America's and Venezuela will be killed, because Trump wants to play with toys.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The military is especially designed to "continue the march" if the leader falls.

I wasn't worried about that, or as your prior post indicated IDing the "trigger puller". That naval aviator may be facing charges for violating the laws of armed combat and should be investigated as to that. I'm more concerned about the chain of command (who is giving the order) both live during the action and in standing orders for the mission. The aircraft was almost certainly in radio contact with the carrier. Who gave these orders?

The Pentagon needs to conduct the operational investigations, but Congress needs to have leadership testifying to the results soon.

 

[RDKirk]

I wasn't worried about that, or as your prior post indicated IDing the "trigger puller". That naval aviator may be facing charges for violating the laws of armed combat and should be investigated as to that. I'm more concerned about the chain of command (who is giving the order) both live during the action and in standing orders for the mission. The aircraft was almost certainly in radio contact with the carrier. Who gave these orders?

That might not have been a normal chain of command. The carrier group may have delivered an "operational group" to the area, and that operational group's chain of command might have skipped the naval chain entirely.

 

[Desk trauma]

Hegseth's got a date in the Hague.

You misspelled: is going to retire comfortably.

 

[Nithavela]

Hegseth declines to comment on report that boat survivors were killed as a result of his orders to military​

According to The Washington Post, the Sept. 2 boat strike initially left two survivors clinging to the boat. The Post says Adm. Mitch Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, then ordered a second strike in order to comply with Hegseth's orders and to ensure the survivors couldn't call on other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.

If true, it is unclear why Bradley wouldn't have ordered troops to collect the survivors and their cargo from the water, as the military did in a subsequent strike when two survivors were taken aboard a Navy ship via helicopter.

"The Department has no response to this article and declines to comment further," a Pentagon spokesperson said Friday.
--
Some experts say the alleged “double-tap” strike may violate the law of armed conflict, which forbids targeting an enemy combatant who’s out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

“They’re breaking the law either way,” Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank who served as associate general counsel at the Pentagon, told CNN. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

Hegseth's got a date in the Hague.

The Hague is for people who lose wars and get gethroned. People who commit war crimes and stay in power will never be persecuted.