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

[RDKirk]

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

Being in a lifeboat is unnecessary. Floating in the water, clinging to flotsam, all those situations are explicitly covered by examples from history in LOAC training. It's illegal to kill them in that state.

 

[BCP1928]

Nice accusation without bothering to show the weakness of my argument. Obama's drone strikes get brought up by a lot of people because it's a perfect example of certain people not complaining about drone strikes then as opposed to now. Just like they didn't complain about Obama's condemning speeches towards illegal immigrants.

OK, then why don't you go find some people who approved of Obama's drone strikes and argue with them?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Being in a lifeboat is unnecessary. Floating in the water, clinging to flotsam, all those situations are explicitly covered by examples from history in LOAC training. It's illegal to kill them in that state.

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

Prove this is not viable:

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.

 

[BCP1928]

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

I still haven't heard that they were actually shooting back, or even preparing to do so. Have you?

 

[RDKirk]

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.

From the military perspective, here is the difference. I've said it before, but I'll repeat it:

Determining where military action should take place is determined by the president and Congress. If those two branches of government are in agreement (that is, Congress as a body has not disagreed with the president), nobody in uniform has the authority to say "No" to the "where."

Once in combat, how we conduct the battle is governed by the Law of Armed Conflict, which is a compendium of US laws already legislated by Congress.

If a target is itself a valid target according to the president and Congress has failed to disagree, certain levels of civilian casualties are permitted by the LOAC if they cannot be avoided or occur through accident despite due care taken. That's what was happening in all but one known case during the Obama and Biden administrations. There were the same kind of incidents that happen in any conflict.

The one questionable incident was the attack against Anwar al-Awlaki. Contrary to popular opinion, the US military killing American citizens--even deliberately--is not prohibited in every circumstance. There are circumstances that permit it. It was questionable at the presidential/Congressional level whether Anwar al-Awlaki was an allowable target. That's far above the soldier's authority to determine, and that is not governed by the Law of Armed Conflict. But how he was killed was correct under the LOAC.

As we are debating in this thread the actions of military members under the Law of Armed Conflict, the issue of Anwar al-Awlaki is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with killing shipwrecked belligerents. Killing shipwrecked belligerents who are no longer capable of returning fire is illegal in every instance under the LOAC.

 

[7thKeeper]

I think I'm sure what you are defending here, as it illogically shows compassion for people who hate us Americans so much to whereas they risk their lives to gleefully deliver fatal [Schedule I] substances for multitudes of vulnerable Americans to fatally ingest.

I've lost people who I love, to the type of substances on the darn boat!! So please forgive me sir, as I work hard locating my compassion like you have for the perps. So far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.

It's not compassion, it's the law and rules. And I am to assume that you're a mind reader to know that these people supposedly (as there has been no evidence that drugs were being trafficked shown so far), "hate" Americans instead of just doing it for the money?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I still haven't heard that they were actually shooting back, or even preparing to do so. Have you?

Who said they were shooting at any point?

 

[RDKirk]

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

The only person claiming that is Tom Cotton. Everyone else who has seen the video (and doesn't have his own okole to cover) says differently.

This is the problem facing the military people involved at the time: The LOAC required them to have rescue facilities, a plan of some kind, available to pick up survivors. Even if they had not killed the survivors, the fact that they carried out an attack without a means to rescue survivors is already a violation of the LOAC. Leaving them eventually to drown would already be a violation of the LOAC.

Essentially, their very plan of attack had already put them in violation of the LOAC...they planned to commit a crime. Everything after that was covering their own okoles.

 

[Servus]

OK, then why don't you go find some people who approved of Obama's drone strikes and argue with them?

I probably am already.

 

[BCP1928]

I probably am already.

So what? Is your only defense to criticism of the Christian position that killing those boatmen was a righteous act
is that the critics are hypocrites?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Essentially, their very plan of attack had already put them in violation of the LOAC...they planned to commit a crime. Everything after that was covering their own okoles.

JAG - The Secretary of War and the Navel Commander disagree -

 

[Nithavela]

So what? Is your only defense to criticism of the Christian position that killing those boatmen was a righteous act
is that the critics are hypocrites?

 

[durangodawood]

JAG - The Secretary of War and the Navel Commander disagree -

Of course they do. As do most people accused of a crime or wrongdoing - or the folks who support them.

Rather than just take the accused's word for it, we should examine the facts and the law, which is what RD was doing, and what you should do too.

 

[Servus]

So what? Is your only defense to criticism of the Christian position that killing those boatmen was a righteous act
is that the critics are hypocrites?

Criticism of the Christian position that killing those boatmen was a righteous act is the opposite of what some are wrongfully accusing me of. Is constantly besmirching and falsely accusing Christians your only reason for being here?

BTW here's a little something to ponder:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15:2-3

 

[BCP1928]

Criticism of the Christian position that killing those boatmen was a righteous act is the opposite of what some are wrongfully accusing me of. Is constantly besmirching and falsely accusing Christians your only reason for being here?

No, I'm just reacting to the Christians here who have praised it, or at least excused it as not immoral.

 

[Say it aint so]

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

Prove this is not viable:

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.

"Re-engaging"? Trying to find something to cling on in the high seas after the boat has been obliterated is re-engaging? Not only that, one would have to "engage" to re-engage.

 

[RDKirk]

I think that it stands to reason, your great idea pertains to peaceful maritime cruise across the seas. I can't see how it also protects pirates, drug runners, etc... when using the seas as a tool to break the law. Especially when they are cognizant of how their criminality kills multitudes of humans.

Those pirates, drug runners, et cetera, are considered "unprivileged belligerents."

Whether you can see it is irrelevant. The law is what the law is, and this is what the law is:

11.4 UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTS
Unprivileged belligerents (see 5.4.1.2) do not have a right to engage in hostilities and do not receive combatant immunity for their hostile acts. They are not entitled to POW status if detained. As with any person detained by the United States, they are entitled to humane treatment as a matter of law and U.S. policy. See 11.2.

11.7 PERSONNEL HORS DE COMBAT
Combatants who have been rendered incapable of combat (hors de combat) by wounds, sickness, shipwreck, surrender, or capture are entitled to special protections including assistance and medical attention, if necessary. Parties to the conflict must, after each engagement and without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick on the field of battle, protect them from harm, and ensure their care. When circumstances permit, a cease-fire should be arranged to enable the wounded and sick to be located and removed to safety and medical care. Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely and cared for without adverse distinction along with the enemy’s own casualties. Priority in order of treatment may only be determined according to medical considerations. The physical and mental well-being of enemy wounded and sick personnel may not be unjustifiably endangered, nor may the wounded and sick be subjected to any medical procedure not called for by their condition or inconsistent with accepted medical standards.

A similar duty extends to shipwrecked persons, whether military or civilian. Shipwrecked persons include those in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of the sinking, grounding, or other damage to a vessel in which they are embarked, or of the downing or distress of an aircraft. It is immaterial whether the peril was the result of enemy action or nonmilitary causes. Following each naval engagement at sea, the belligerents are obligated to take all
possible measures, consistent with the security of their forces, to search for and rescue the shipwrecked. The status of persons detained—combatant, unprivileged belligerent, noncombatant, or civilian—does not change as a result of becoming incapacitated by wounds, sickness, shipwreck, or surrender. The decision to continue detention of persons hors de combat and the status of such detainees will be determined by their prior
classification.

https://stjececmsdusgva001.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/documents/NWP_1-14M.pdf

https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/department_of_defense_law_of_war_manual.pdf

 

[RDKirk]

There's an awfully big difference between condoning an immoral act and not seeing something as an immoral act based on what's known at the time.

At this time, killing survivors at sea is know as immoral by the entire world...except, apparently, by some Christians.

 

[RDKirk]

If many who shout their moral outrage over the treatment of terrorist drug dealers had the same amount of moral outrage about the lefts treatment of Trump it would be more believable. Actually we all know it is really not about concern for drug dealers it is about damaging Trump and his administration. I believe the word is hypocrisy.

"The left's treatment of Trump?"

What?

Trump is the president of the United States living in the White House. He's on top of the whole freaking world. He's the best-treated person on earth.

Whatever "the left" might have tried to do to Trump has been so utterly unsuccessful as to be negligible. The mosquito that successfully bit me last week was worse treatment than Trump has gotten from "the left."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Referencing Obama's war crimes or his controversial bombings, is not changing the topic. It is simply reminding some people of Presidential acts which they were okay with --as long as it isn't the Trump Admin doing the evil! lol

It's an efficient way to help people see their own hypocrisies and mea culpas.

Of course it is. You assume that we even know what you are talking about. If posters do know what you are talking about, you don't know what they thought about those incidents. They are not the topic. If you want to use other incidents for comparison on what is or is not permissible (or should/should not be) that is fine, but keep your claims of hypocrisy to your self.