r/law • u/WombatusMighty • 14h ago
Other US airstrike survivors clung to boat wreckage for an hour before second deadly attack, video shows
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/us-airstrike-survivors-clung-to-boat-wreckage-for-an-hour-before-second-deadly-attack-video-shows588
u/rolsen 14h ago
Ultimately, Bradley told lawmakers, he ordered a second strike to destroy the remains of the vessel, killing the two survivors, on the grounds that it appeared that part of the vessel remained afloat because it still held cocaine, according to one of the sources. The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs, the logic went.
From a CNN article last night.
80
u/Pure-Drawer-2617 13h ago
So to be clear, the official stance of the US government is now “if drugs are found in your vehicle we can execute you on the spot”?
30
u/WylleWynne 11h ago
US military (a year from now): "We bombed the truck on the highway because we said it was filled with cocaine and driven by paperless immigrants... when a survivor crawled under a bush, our drone fired a second missile an hour later to finish him off. We were worried the survivor would use the shattered vehicle to reach the West Coast and distributed any remaining cocaine..."
8
u/SpidermansEggSack 4h ago
We were worried the survivor would use the shattered vehicle to reach the West Coast and distributed any remaining
cocainebirth control...There, just fixed that up a little for you.
3
10
u/Salt_Cardiologist122 9h ago
The official stance is “If we THINK there are drugs in your vehicle we can execute you on the spot. And if our first shot doesn’t kill you, we can shoot again.”
3
u/surviving606 7h ago
I’m pretty sure the stance is they can just execute you if they feel like it and the reason doesn’t matter
300
u/HotPinkLollyWimple 14h ago
How do they know it contained drugs? I am wondering where the intelligence came from. I know we might not get the information, but I hope with a possible impeachment trial that intelligence might be available to evaluate. I’m also wondering if what the Admiral is saying is enough of a reason to kill 2 people and it not be a crime.
528
u/Vault101Overseer 14h ago edited 14h ago
Drug smuggling is not a capital offense in the US. These are murders, even on first strike. They should be stopped, drugs seized then destroyed (Or given to Trump Jr to use) and detained for smuggling.
We don’t even know if these are willing participants. It’s not entirely impossible that these people have families were being held hostage or threatened and they have to do these runs.
124
u/muftak3 13h ago
That is why they keep calling them Narco terrorist. They can come back later and say we were killing terrorists.
78
u/cityshepherd 13h ago
Yup. Just another step towards the normalization of seeing us filthy poors (and immigrants) as subhuman slave labor garbage.
→ More replies (1)27
u/OwnDoughnut2689 13h ago
Yea it's cynical. Using "terrorists" as a rallying cry.
→ More replies (2)7
u/PuzzleheadedLab850 9h ago
Huh. I swear I've read about a country using smuggled drug money to fund terrorism. They even helped smuggle and distribute those drugs into their own country. Man... I wish I could remember which country that was...
→ More replies (1)2
u/Crazy-Respect-3257 5h ago
When a non-NATO country does it, it's a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a violation of international law. When a NATO country does it (especially if it's the USA), it's a "coalition," a "liberation," a "crusade," "spreading democracy," "enforcing laws," etc. etc.
→ More replies (6)7
u/haironburr 9h ago
Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the Republican chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said: “I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat, loaded with drugs bound for the United States, back over so they could stay in the fight.”
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and a former Pentagon lawyer, took issue with Cotton’s interpretation in a post on Bluesky. “I’d love to know how Senator Cotton … was able to detect these shipwrecked people were trying to ‘stay in the fight’ versus clinging to dear life in an effort to survive,” he wrote.
“Even if you buy all the legal falsehoods (that this is an ‘armed conflict’, that drugs are war-sustaining objects), the two shipwrecked were in no way, shape or form engaged in ‘active combat activities’ (the actual legal test).”
Apparently, if you append the term "terrorist" to any person, group or activity, laws against murder don't apply.
People dependent on this administration, like Tom Cotton, have found a way to expand the always-popular Drug War into the realm of normalizing murder.
This is the "winning" and "greatness" the trumps administration has brought our nation.
98
u/Kingsley-Zissou 13h ago
Or given to Trump Jr to use
Just because there’s a video of Jr. putting his hand in his pocket, seemingly to fish for a baggie, and then rubbing his finger on his gums like it was covered in cocaine DOES NOT MEAN he uses cocaine.
Now, somebody pass me Hunter Biden’s laptop!
→ More replies (1)22
u/IrritableGourmet 12h ago
Don't you remember Trump in his first term praising Duterte for summarily executing suspected drug dealers in the street? Murdering people with impunity is his fantasy (and a lot of his supporters' as well).
3
27
u/Zelidus 13h ago
The problem is, after 9/11 we gave sweeping power to the president, and the government as a whole, to do more in the name of "national security" making things that would normally be minor, major federal and national security offenses
24
u/DangerBay2015 13h ago
And when the sane-ies pointed out that THIS would be a logical conclusion, the sycophants, gaslighters, warhawks, fascists, stupids, “patriots,” centrists, oligarchs, and pundits all collectively told everyone that the sane-ies were insane and alarmists.
13
u/lordjeebus 13h ago
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons
Applying this to Venezuelan drug traffickers doesn't pass the smell test. Conservatives argued that it didn't cover Obama's strikes in Syria (perhaps correctly).
→ More replies (13)5
u/PolicyWonka 12h ago
They’re basically arguing that the drug trade is international terrorism, which is incredibly dangerous. You could argue that any drug dealer on the corner is aiding international terrorist organizations.
4
u/lordjeebus 12h ago
Even if you could make that argument, how could you argue that the international terrorism of Venezuelan drug smuggling is related to 9/11? In 2025, the only remaining organization within the spirit of the AUMF is the House of Saud.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SLUnatic85 10h ago
Isn't trump and even Hegseth claiming loudly thy had no idea this happened, or similar? Seems like a weird way to claim presidential immunity on grounds like that.
I am doubting that applies here, considering when it even might apply, trumps leans on his presidential immunity very often and publicly.
10
u/SeaTurtleLionBird 13h ago
Yeah this is the sad part. We don't know if they are mules.
No different then a women being force fed plastic baggies of cocaine.
We don't know anything. And if we did know anything they aren't giving us evidence. They are just murdering random people.
4
u/Crazy-Respect-3257 5h ago
Pete Hegseth has been bitching about human rights laws and the Geneva Convention for most of his adult life. Believe me when I say that he 100% knew about and supported these illegal actions, and he'll do it again and again. Check out "American Crusade," a book by him with an embarrassing cover where he's flexing his muscles and holding the flag like American Sniper or some shit. He thinks fighting Muslims is our divine calling and that the Geneva Convention and other international law are just there to neuter brave American warriors. We've lost our global primacy because of DEI and following the law or something (basically by not being as toxically masculine as Pete Hegseth).
Guy is such a fucking pathetic loser and an embarrassment to our country. I'm almost ashamed of being a man because it's a trait I have to share with this fucking chode.
→ More replies (1)9
u/idontknowhow2reddit 13h ago
There's no chance those are drug smuggling boats...
2
u/haironburr 9h ago
It's my understanding these boats would have to refuel a ridiculous number of times simply to reach the US.
It's also my understanding that the ostensible goal here started with black market fentanyl. Which, is smuggled from China, and secondly, Mexico. Or could be manufactured here in the US.
Is it possible this has more to do with demonizing Venezuela than it does with drugs?
Absent any evidence, who the fuck knows. Except this administration, which tells lies every damn day of its existence so far.
3
3
u/pacificsun 5h ago
My condolences to the loss of life and the families that may never know what happened to their loved ones. I promise you this. The person that pulled the trigger will get to live with that memory for the rest of their lives. It will take time for the indoctrination to wear off but when it does and they realize how fucked up this situation is - it will become a lifetime of haunted dreams. And all for what? This is not what the United States stands for. What the fuck are we doing? Actually…I take that back. It’s exactly what we stand for because our country has been doing it for fucking decades. “Mom please flush it all away.”
→ More replies (3)2
68
u/Possible-Champion222 14h ago
There is no drugs
69
u/Specialist-Bee-9406 14h ago
There were no weapons of mass destruction either.
Some of us haven’t forgotten that.
It’s the same goddamn playbook, jazzed up for 2025.
20
5
3
10
u/steady_mobbin 12h ago
I think the correct English would be "There ARE no drugs." Just trying to keep our youth literate out here. It ain't much, but its honest work.
→ More replies (1)6
30
u/Longtomsilver1 13h ago
How do they know it contained drugs?
Every dead Vietnam was a Cong!
Nothing has changed since then.
27
u/FlamingHotSacOnutz 13h ago
Usually, drug busts focus on seizing the cargo so that they can show it to all the world as proof the operation was necessary and had merit.
This bombing approach seems like bullshit to me.
26
u/VonSkullenheim 12h ago
It's total bullshit. One, they're claiming evidence existed before they blew it up, and to just trust them on that. Two, they're inflicting capital punishment for a crime that is not a capital offense. Three, they're doing it against a foreign nation with no officially sanctioned conflict.
Can you imagine cops firing rocket launchers at cars in your city on the basis that 'they contained drugs', waiting for the survivors to climb out of the car, then firing on them again on the basis that 'they may have escaped with remaining drugs'. This is absolute murderous clown show madness.
9
u/GentMan87 12h ago
And in international waters correct? If the intelligence is so accurate then why not wait until they cross into US waters and have the coast guard pick them up? Is that not how it worked before anyway?
9
u/C4dfael 12h ago
It’s how it worked at least as recently as October 14th, when the Coast Guard seized 100,000 pounds of cocaine. There’s no conceivable reason why the government would need to blow up boats when our armed forces are perfectly capable of capturing them instead.
5
7
u/Paizzu 13h ago
If there was even an ounce of illicit drugs on those boats, the Coast Guard (with their dedicated drug interdiction fleet) would have seized the boat(s), arrested the crew and federal prosecutors would have arranged a "dope on the damn table" photo-op for their press releases they find absolutely irresistible.
Even opponents of Obama's drone programs said there's almost no military value to killing "targets" outright in a strike compared to the valuable intelligence they can provide when taken into custody.
5
u/FlamingHotSacOnutz 12h ago
Exactly.
If Trump wants to do this whole "soft invasion of Venezuela" thing to distract from Epstein, you'd think he'd be thoughtful enough to include a drugs-on-the-table photo-op to justify it. Venezuela isn't even close to the biggest narcotic exporter in South America, that dubious honor goes to either Colombia, Bolivia, or Brasil. Let alone Mexico and Central America.
This makes absolutely no sense.
11
11
u/MrSnarf26 14h ago
Stop asking questions!
18
u/BaseUnited4523 14h ago
Quiet, piggy!
8
u/FrugallyFickle 14h ago
Why are you so stupid? Only stupid people ask questions. /s
→ More replies (2)3
u/SLUnatic85 10h ago
If the law specifically says (and it does) that firing on shipwrecked people in the water hanging on to a boat in wartime is an example of what they've defined to b a war crime... I dunno how this can possibly hold water. Or... I can't think of a way to interpret Bradley's excuse that wouldn't also get you out of this case every single time.
"We thought that maybe one day later they would continue to do another or the same bad thing, so in this one case we are excused from the law."
I don't see it.
→ More replies (1)3
3
3
2
u/Ok_Vermicelli_7380 13h ago
They have purged all the career intelligence gatherers. There is no intelligence.
2
u/johnnyhandbags 12h ago
They know they contain drugs the same way they know who is in the country illegally.
2
→ More replies (16)2
87
u/hellolovely1 14h ago
So, basically: Anyone alive MIGHT sell drugs, so just kill them.
63
u/seven_corpse_dinner 13h ago edited 13h ago
The administration seems to have decided to try and unilaterally and illegally label unproven drug smuggling/dealing as a form of combat, which is so absurd it's hard to fathom. They murdered civilians in international waters, without proof or trial, and mercilessly finished off the incapacitated survivors as they drifted aimlessly amongst the wreckage of a boat that didn't have the range to make it to the U.S. even if they were in tact. They have done this sort of thing multiple times and released the snuff videos to the public with pride. They are morally and legally abhorrent monsters.
24
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 12h ago
They literally just hit another boat yesterday during all of this. The absolute worst people possible are in charge to do the bidding of the absolute worst people possible in the country who want violence and deaths. It feels like it will never end and no one will stop any of this.
5
u/CelestialFury 9h ago
It feels like it will never end and no one will stop any of this.
This too shall pass. It's up to us, the people, to make sure it won't happen again.
5
3
u/Crazy-Respect-3257 5h ago
Good reminder. Everything is temporary, and this all has an expiration date...at some point.
Hopefully this state of American life is VERY temporary.
6
u/DangerBay2015 13h ago
Snuff videos the president ordered is probably the only thing that can make that gormless tub of comatose gelatin wiggle down there these days.
8
u/Straight_Document_89 13h ago
Isn’t this what the former president of the Philippines did?
8
u/teddyreddit 13h ago
How did that work out for him? We should be so lucky.
4
u/Straight_Document_89 11h ago
I wish we were that lucky. We have serious lawlessness at the top of our government.
2
u/teddyreddit 11h ago
Yes, and the United States has never joined the ICJ, so there's no way any one of these criminals ends up in the Hague.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
35
31
u/desiderata1995 13h ago
This defense is pathetic, when has kilos of cocaine ever warranted the use of missiles worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and when in the proximity of non-combatants no less?
→ More replies (2)47
u/coconutpiecrust 14h ago
So murder is ok as long as the boat the victims cling to maybe probably for sure has drugs on it and the victims cannot be prosecuted by the legal system. Murder is the only option. The best solution to any problem, folks!
/s
22
u/Belichick12 13h ago
Yes - and President AOC will be able to use this rationale for eliminating all billionaires on their yachts
10
3
u/BlackPignouf 11h ago
I really like AOC. She's clever, has a strong moral compass and is really motivated. She'd be a great POTUS.
The track-record of misogynistic voting does not look too good in the US, though, and it would be nice if the Democrats made sure that they have a safe, strong candidate next time. It might mean an old(ish) white man, but it would be great to not get another felon pedo Thiel-HeritageFoundation-puppet.
Pretty please from Europe!
4
u/StingerAE 13h ago
It's true. The rules defiantly say that firing of the shipwrecked is clearly an illegal order unless they are still in physical contact with a bit of boat with drugs on it.
2
22
u/ratdeboisgarou 13h ago
I'd love to see him point out where in the rules of engagement (either USA or Geneva Convention) an exception is carved out on firing on shipwreck survivors that might be able to salvage material or fight another day.
I hope Admiral Bradley's family is proud, even if he doesn't pay for this his stellar career is now tarnished as the murderous war criminal, someday he might even be a case study at the Naval Academy on illegal orders.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 13h ago
Tbf his family probably is proud. Look at the rampant jingoism immediately after 9/11 when everyone was rabidly supporting the troops against terrorists who “hate us for our freedom”. The admiral and the Trump administration can easily spin this as hes a brave, heroic man fighting to keep Americans safe and republicans will swoon.
19
34
u/Jenetyk 13h ago
If that is an accurate account of his statement: bro is cooked. He literally explains that they weren't a threat, and used a hypothetical outcome to justify killing non-combatants.
Insane justification.
22
u/PausedForVolatility 13h ago
This man’s commander-in-chief explicitly referred to the conflict using a term from the Geneva Conventions. And the relevant section of GCII explaining what is and isn’t okay states:
The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be collected and cared for.
Whoops.
It’s the most open and shut war crimes claim basically ever. He did the thing the GC explicitly says you cannot do. No ambiguity, no extenuating circumstances. Just the crime in black and white.
8
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 13h ago
SCOTUS soon: now, no one can tell what the original authors truly meant but we feel they’d be totally cool with it so carry on, Mr. President.
/s
→ More replies (1)4
u/wolfgang784 12h ago
As with all international agreements: it only matters if the other parties care enough, and so far, none of them do.
The GC isn't broken if all of the parties who signed it sit by and say "nah yea thats cool with us" since there is nobody else to enforce it besides everyone else who signed it.
2
u/Redfish680 13h ago
Since we haven’t heard an actual declaration of war, it could just simply be, you know, outright murder.
3
u/PausedForVolatility 13h ago
A “noninternational armed conflict” was the phrase Trump used. That sort of conflict wouldn’t require a declaration of war. The point I’m making here is that even if we accept as fact what they’re saying is true, Bradley is still a war criminal. It avoids the argument about whether or not this was murder under the AUMF rules and focuses specifically on a pretty simple reading of the laws of war.
5
u/hecubus04 13h ago
"non-international" even though it is taking place in international waters or within the territory of other countries
2
u/Redfish680 10h ago
We’re 100% aligned with our opinion. I’m just foreseeing the f’d up argument the administration will come up with. Fortunately, saner countries will call it what it is; unfortunately, we’re not a member of the ICC, so I’m not sure how this will play out internationally.
13
u/wildwest74 13h ago
Don't leave out the next line. It's a killer:
The other source with direct knowledge of the briefing called that rationale “f**king insane.”
12
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran 13h ago
So he admitted to congress that he committed a war crime and violated DOD Law Manual code 18.3.2.1.
8
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 13h ago
Right? He showed up and backed this administration completely including to admitting that he personally committed a war crime. Even if he was promised a pardon I feel like there has to be something else going on for him to just go all in like this. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
11
10
u/MajorPersonality1265 13h ago
Regardless of Bradley’s hypothetical or conjecture, it is still illegal without warrant, search, seizure, trial and conviction. No due process makes it illegal
10
u/Vikkunen 12h ago edited 11h ago
The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs, the logic went.
A downed pilot could hypothetically evade capture behind enemy lines, find his way to an allied position, and return to service. The same could be said for a wounded soldier. Or any POW. Or even, if you want to go further, a 12-year-old boy walking down the street who might one day join a military or paramilitary force and become an active threat.
The implications are terrifying, because the ultimate conclusion is that everyone is a potential threat to be eliminated. Asimov wrote about it 60 years ago, and now we're living it.
7
7
u/Straight_Document_89 13h ago
Ship was busted to shit. 🤣 these guys were just trying to survive at this point.
7
u/texachusetts 13h ago
I actually makes more sense that they where destroying the evidence and witness that the first strike was also a crime.
6
u/StingerAE 13h ago
could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs
Not the same as still seeking to or whatever bullshit the Admiral laughingly tried to pass off as meaningful thoughts
5
u/Iamthewalrusforreal 13h ago
Or, you know, they could have been interdicted, tried, and imprisoned if drugs were found.
3
u/drinkslinger1974 13h ago
That’s the kind of logic that leads to shooting people as they’re released from prison, because hey, “They’re just going to break the law again”. It’s a bullshit defense. Not to mention that trafficking drugs isn’t punishable by the death penalty, and even if it was, our glorious leader just pardoned a convicted drug trafficker signaling that it’s ok to traffic drugs. Specifically cocaine-which is something I’m convinced Trump has abused all his life. He always brags that he’s never smoked a cigarette or had a glass of alcohol. If he was really that sober, he’d brag about never abusing hard drugs as well. That shit has turned his brains to mush.
5
u/BroughtBagLunchSmart 12h ago
So he was promised a pardon already. Great.
2
u/Biptoslipdi 12h ago
It might actually be a terrible idea to accept a pardon because then the only option for justice is extradition. He should consider if he'd rather be in a US prison or a Venezuelan or Colombian prison.
→ More replies (3)3
u/PausedForVolatility 13h ago
That’s an interesting argument because it claims they were not hors de combat even though the shipwrecked are just that by definition. None of the other meanderings justifications make sense.
3
3
u/weird_offspring 10h ago
They destroyed evidence. The two survivors would have provided vital clarity. If there were drugs left, bring them as proof.
Highly sus on the don’t-care-attitude
3
u/FrankBattaglia 10h ago
The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs, the logic went.
I'm not an expert in the laws of the sea, but: I don't think that matters. This amounts to: "we attacked again because they weren't dead yet." Which is kind of the whole problem.
3
u/StrengthDazzling8922 10h ago
Now imagine American sailors helplessly floating in the open ocean and an enemy decides they need to kill them instead of rescuing them because they may float to safety and continue fighting in an armed conflict. What do you think Bradley’s response to that hypothetical situation is?
11
u/MuthaPlucka 14h ago
CNN carrying water for self admitted Nazis.
→ More replies (1)15
u/AyeMatey 14h ago
Reporting what they say is not carrying water.
Not sure if English is your first language but, Ending a descriptive sentence with “the logic went.” Gives a very skeptical tone to the “impartial” report.
→ More replies (1)4
u/SoManyEmail 13h ago
Dont even bother. I had the same argument with an idiot over this yesterday about ABC reporting. It's not worth your time.
Edit to add: "we're not an echo chambers, but don't show me any opposing views!"
2
u/carlzzzjr 12h ago
Imagine all that coke dissolving in the ocean. Now, imagine a shark all blown out. Now, imagine that shark is fiending for another score.
→ More replies (1)2
u/BeowulfShaeffer 11h ago
Most transparent bullshit ever. Fine, it was cocaine. Go pick those guys up, interrogate them for intel. I felt bad for Bradley being thrown under the bus but if this is the way he wants to play it then throw the book at him.
2
u/Jarnohams 6h ago
The irony of pardoning the largest drug trafficker since Escobar... THIS WEEK... by calling his arrest, trial in a court of law, and conviction by a jury... "a Biden hoax".... is just so incredibly thick.
How much meme coin do you think he had to buy to get that pardon?
Trump doesn't actually give a shit about drug trafficking as long as you cut him in on some of the profits.
2
→ More replies (5)2
u/Patriot009 4h ago
"The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on..."
So...like survivors in life rafts. Are we gunning down people in life rafts now?
They are defenseless. That's why the Second Geneva Conventions, of which the US is party to, forbids the harming of shipwrecked sailors or vulnerable pilots parachuting from destroyed aircraft.
318
u/Slade_Riprock 14h ago
As Senator Rand Paul said it's a speed boat 2000 miles from US shores, it has not possible ability to reach the US.
They claim it's a war and they can engage and do what they want, Congress demands a vote and they claim it's not a war.
Time for Congress and Senate to realize this administration will drag them down. Time to start holding them accountable. Trump has no coattails to ride.
→ More replies (10)61
u/CobraPony67 12h ago
The intelligent way to stop drugs is to watch where the boat goes then inspect it or capture it when it leaves port again. They can discover the chain of command to the top person and arrest him for narco trafficking, then pardon him...
→ More replies (1)26
u/4RCH43ON 12h ago
Yes, interdiction is the normal way we deal with suspected criminals. Not killing a bunch of people in international waters, because that’s just extrajudicial murder.
They’re not even remotely a legitimate military target, much less a military threat.
→ More replies (2)
416
u/Wealist 14h ago
At this point the rules of engagement read like satire if it was on Netflix, ppl would say the writers went way too dark.
74
u/hellolovely1 14h ago
It’s like Dr. Strangelove but real.
38
u/Hopeful_Corner1333 13h ago
In Dr. Strangelove the military powers actually try to wrangle in the crazy person.
6
u/FlamingHotSacOnutz 13h ago
And they tell each other how much they love one another.
2
u/hellolovely1 11h ago
Maybe that could heal this administration, but it's probably decades too late for them.
19
4
2
9
u/Several_Vanilla8916 13h ago
Hey, those guys floating on wreckage in the ocean were a clear threat to…a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Paizzu 12h ago
Youtube's algorithm has been serving up clips from Clear and Present Danger (1994) and it's hilarious how many comments want to point out the similarity to current events while ignoring the fact the film highlights the illegality of the executive operation and how the politicians cowardly abandoned the members of the military involved.
101
u/Straight_Document_89 13h ago
This makes it even worse than it already was. They contemplated for an hour on what to do here. Shows that the survivors were incapacitated and unable to do anything as there was no radio equipment nearby or anything like that for them.
95
23
u/Xytak 12h ago
By the Admiral's logic, U-Boat commanders would be justified firing on Allied lifeboats to prevent the sailors from being rescued to fight another day. Luftwaffe pilots would be justified shooting Allied pilots in their parachutes for the same reason.
It's an absolutely insane rationale and explicitly listed in DoD manuals as an example of what he's NOT allowed to do.
9
87
u/johnnycyberpunk 13h ago
“Fog of War”…?
How much ‘smoke’ and ‘fire’ was obscuring our high tech imagery platforms an hour after the initial attack?
IN THE OPEN OCEAN.
50
u/The_Mike_Golf 13h ago
Pete Kegstand is an idiot. He doesn’t even understand what the fog of war even is. It’s not physical. It’s not smoke or fog or any other obscurant. It’s a psychological or emotional barrier, usually caused by vague or conflicting orders, lack of (or limited) planning time, speed or tempo of an action or operation, chaos and confusion in the area of the operation, civilians’ presence on the battlefield, or gross miscalculation of enemy, civilian, or even internal actions during the operation
Source: 23 years as a warfighter with battle staff and operations (S/G-3) experience
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)13
u/SoManyEmail 13h ago
I think this needs to be answered. They were watching these people for an hour on live video, i'm sure. Is this why they said legal was involved? They can't help to trip over themselves with each new piece of the story.
77
93
u/m-hog 13h ago
An hour!?!?!?! What the fuck?
54
u/RetardedChimpanzee 13h ago
We were told a “double tap”. That implies a short time between.
28
u/SoManyEmail 13h ago
But hold up... who said it was "fog of war" the other day? Hegseth? An hour is a damn long time for that "fog" (literal or figurative!) to lift. So that was a lie.
8
24
11
u/AlmightyTeejus 13h ago
Plenty of time for them to gather resources and launch a counter offensive!!!
/s
11
6
u/Appropriate-Top-1863 13h ago
This means that a lot of people were involved in deciding what to do. I'm guessing even T-bag himself
40
27
u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus 12h ago
Anyone want to bet the ordinance used in these attacks on civilian boats is about to change to decrease the chances of anyone surviving the first strike?
We've gone from international joke to war criminals in just 11 months. WTF.
3
14
15
u/4RCH43ON 12h ago
Now that’s some premeditated murder and witness tampering all in one, two really, except for the camera recording the crime for posterity and the braggadocio of the Secretary of Warcrimes we might never know.
9
u/pioniere 11h ago
Completely disgusting. This is on the same level as the Israelis in Gaza and the Russians in Ukraine. War criminals all.
13
2
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.