Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

[jacorian]

My understanding is that the survivors were trying to access another vessel. But as in any military or police operation, munitions firing is carried out to ensure complete safety. I.e. it's not a quota of shots & you're done.

 

[Say it aint so]

My understanding is that the survivors were trying to access another vessel. But as in any military or police operation, munitions firing is carried out to ensure complete safety. I.e. it's not a quota of shots & you're done.

That's not correct.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What remained of the boat was not salvageable, not to mention the two survivors clinging to a capsized portion. What is the purpose of the second hit if not to make sure all on board were dead?

I didn’t say anything about the boat being salvageable

 

[RDKirk]

My understanding is that the survivors were trying to access another vessel.

Who said that? What other vessel?

But as in any military or police operation, munitions firing is carried out to ensure complete safety. I.e. it's not a quota of shots & you're done.

Who said that? Where was that said?

 

[comana]

I didn’t say anything about the boat being salvageable

In other words, not salvageable is destroyed for all practical purposes. The ”threat” is gone as the two survivors cannot continue with their mission. They should have been brought on board a ship and detained.

 

[Bradskii]

The order was to intercept and destroy a terrorist boat carrying drugs. First shot did not destroy the boat - the second shot did.

In May of '42 the Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryu was eventually sunk at Midway. 39 sailors managed to escape on a lifeboat after most of the crew had been rescued by other Japanese ships. A US plane spotted their boat 14 days later.

These men were at war with the US. They were enemy combatants. They had been actively involved in killing very many US servicemen. You're the man in charge of what happens next. You've sunk their ship but these 39 have survived.

Do you gun them down and finish the job?

 

[Always in His Presence]

In May of '42 the Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryu was eventually sunk at Midway. 39 sailors managed to escape on a lifeboat after most of the crew had been rescued by other Japanese ships. A US plane spotted their boat 14 days later.

These men were at war with the US. They were enemy combatants. They had been actively involved in killing very many US servicemen. You're the man in charge of what happens next. You've sunk their ship but these 39 have survived.

Do you gun them down and finish the job?

Were the drug runners in a life boat?

 

[Always in His Presence]

In other words, not salvageable is destroyed for all practical purposes. The ”threat” is gone as the two survivors cannot continue with their mission. They should have been brought on board a ship and detained.

Not sunk. The mission is to sink the vessel and destroy the load of narcotics on board.

It took a second hit to accomplish.

 

[comana]

Not sunk. The mission is to sink the vessel and destroy the load of narcotics on board.

It took a second hit to accomplish.

The survivors being present muddles the mission though.

 

[Bradskii]

Were the drug runners in a life boat?

The Japanese were attacked by US forces because they were at war. They were a threat to American lives and their ship destroyed. Thirty nine survived the attack. Maybe you'd say that the situation with the drug runners was the same (you'd be wrong, but we'll assume that would be your view). So their boat was destroyed and two survived. For over an hour: US airstrike survivors clung to boat wreckage for an hour before second deadly attack, video shows

'Two men who survived a US airstrike on a suspected drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean clung to the wreckage for an hour before they were killed in a second attack, according to a video of the episode shown to senators in Washington.'

So this wasn't even a one-two strike. The boat was destroyed, most occupants were blown up and people watched two men struggling in the sea for over an hour. And then decided to kill them in cold blood. Trying to defend this is unconscionable.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The Japanese were attacked by US forces because they were at war. They were a threat to American lives and their ship destroyed. Thirty nine survived the attack. Maybe you'd say that the situation with the drug runners was the same (you'd be wrong, but we'll assume that would be your view). So their boat was destroyed and two survived. For over an hour: US airstrike survivors clung to boat wreckage for an hour before second deadly attack, video shows

'Two men who survived a US airstrike on a suspected drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean clung to the wreckage for an hour before they were killed in a second attack, according to a video of the episode shown to senators in Washington.'

So this wasn't even a one-two strike. The boat was destroyed, most occupants were blown up and people watched two men struggling in the sea for over an hour. And then decided to kill them in cold blood. Trying to defend this is unconscionable.

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

 

[Bradskii]

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

No, the two men we're talking about weren't even in a boat. They were floundering around in the water. Hanging on to a wrecked boat. For an hour, for heaven's sake. People watched them for an hour and then somone decided to kill them.

How you can try to excuse this is beyond belief.

 

[Nithavela]

Do you know if the Obama DoD is the force that made the 'double tap' bombing concept more acceptable for future Presidents to use?

I've been trying to locate Trump DoD critics who have proof that the survivors were surrendering when the 2nd boat strike occurred and killed them. Because if the video shows them refusing to surrender and un-injured; Was that because they had preserved their hatred/their terroirizing mindset toward the USA?

I guess some politicians are imagining that the 2 survivors were treading water while also making decrees to each other to never again try to help destroy USA residents with their narcotic.

The obvious solution is of course to kill people so fast they have no chance to surrender or have a change of heart. Thus, they die as purely evil narco-terrorists and all is peachy.

 

[Yttrium]

From what I've seen so far, I'd say the Navy has enough to proceed with an Article 32 hearing to decide whether the case should go to court-martial. Conduct a proper military investigation. Trump could just pardon him if he's convicted, so no worries.

 

[Nithavela]

In May of '42 the Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryu was eventually sunk at Midway. 39 sailors managed to escape on a lifeboat after most of the crew had been rescued by other Japanese ships. A US plane spotted their boat 14 days later.

These men were at war with the US. They were enemy combatants. They had been actively involved in killing very many US servicemen. You're the man in charge of what happens next. You've sunk their ship but these 39 have survived.

Do you gun them down and finish the job?

Ever heard of the Laconia incident?

If shipwrecked people aren't meant to be gunned down in cold blood, why are they such easy targets?

 

[RDKirk]

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: Killing men who are survivors at sea.

 

[Factotum]

From what I've seen so far, I'd say the Navy has enough to proceed with an Article 32 hearing to decide whether the case should go to court-martial. Conduct a proper military investigation. Trump could just pardon him if he's convicted, so no worries.

Thats intriguing. Although I disagree.

If there is video of any type that show humans doing any type of physical surrendering gestures... then I could could agree with your premise.
But if no humans were trying to surrender to the enemy that sent the armaments they just saw and felt, then that can disqualify Article 32.

 

[Bradskii]

Ever heard of the Laconia incident?

If shipwrecked people aren't meant to be gunned down in cold blood, why are they such easy targets?

I came across it earlier when looking for examples of survivors at sea being killed or saved. Depressing.

 

[RDKirk]

Thats intriguing. Although I disagree.

If there is video of any type that show humans doing any type of physical surrendering gestures... then I could could agree with your premise.
But if no humans were trying to surrender to the enemy that sent the armaments they just saw and felt, then that can disqualify Article 32.

The law does not require "physical surrendering gestures" for shipwrecked people. Being shipwrecked is sufficient. In fact, the circumstances presume that if the persons shipwrecked were able to continue fighting, they would. That's why they're taken prisoner rather than treated as long-lost buddies.

 

[Factotum]

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: Killing men who are survivors at sea.

I can sympathize with you, and I wish you the best in handling your displeasure. I know elders who felt the same way in 2012, and especially in 2016 when Obama-Biden Afghanistan bombings killed about 100 innocent civilians incl. children and women.