KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

---

You going to drone a trap house or an Appalachian meth lab too?

---

Absolutely a method lab.

---

Appreciate the honesty, even if that's a crazy idea.

---

Spend approx 3 years volunteering in a homeless shelter, and witness first hand the horrible damage these drugs are doing to thousands of American families....and you might decide destroying meth labs isn't so crazy.

---

Have spent 20+ years volunteering in some of the worst environments in the world. While I have some empathy, no one is being forced to take drugs. In fact the vast majority of drug use in the U.S. is recreational in nature, and the highest addiction rate is in prescription drugs.

---

Have now deleted 4 responses to this.

As I generally respect your opinions.

We disagree.

Have a good evening.

---

Fair enough. Bet we agree on a lot more than we don't. This is the arena for the debate flashpoints, and as you said, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree,

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

cowboycwr said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Lol. You just made my point and don't realize it. M

According to you and the things you cited we would NEVER be able to attack enemy ships in international waters.

Most of what you cited is also not for military purposes. Or as you note we are not bound to.

You also ignored my point about the survivors being killed under Obama and no one making a big deal about it. There are hundreds of videos showing this. Like helicopters shooting at people walking and then shooting again when they are on the ground.

So until you post something condemning Obama for shooting survivors I know you are not serious.

---

Obama was involved in this? Huh, didn't know he had involvement. Otherwise what does that have to do with what happened under the current Administration

Please, humor me, why the constant discussion of past Administrations? What does Biden and Obama or Bush and Reagan have to do with this specific incident? I really do not get it. Those are ancient history and I am sure they were discussed at nauseum when they occurred. But, they are immaterial to this discussion.

As for this act.

Attacking sailors at sea that are non-combatants is a crime. I won't say war crime, as we are not at war with anyone. But the investigation is not out of line.

But, so far the only one that seems to get it is Tom Cotton and his comments. It appeared to him that the 2 were trying to get back into the fight (what fight I am not sure of since there was no shots fired at the US). That would make them combatants and legitimate targets. At least someone in this mess appears to have debriefed contact and knows the drill.

Only issue is that there are others saying otherwise. It looks to me like it will need to be played out in the JAG Corps system, which is why it is there (JAG has existed since 1775, rules of war and legality have ALWAYS been part of the military. It is older than the Dec of Independence. It is not some liberal invention.)

Someone said, in your "JAG combat world", got news for you IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A JAG combat world since the beginning. Sums up that you are missing the point. Military action is serious and there are consequences. Everyone hates JAG until they are defending you.

where is the bombing???

PA.

Pete??

- uncle fred

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

Go Bears!!

WAR!!!

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

---

You going to drone a trap house or an Appalachian meth lab too?

---

Absolutely a method lab.

---

Appreciate the honesty, even if that's a crazy idea.

---

Spend approx 3 years volunteering in a homeless shelter, and witness first hand the horrible damage these drugs are doing to thousands of American families....and you might decide destroying meth labs isn't so crazy.

---

Have spent 20+ years volunteering in some of the worst environments in the world. While I have some empathy, no one is being forced to take drugs. In fact the vast majority of drug use in the U.S. is recreational in nature, and the highest addiction rate is in prescription drugs.

---

Absolutely true, initially. Everyone starts out sober and has the choice to take the first drink/drug. But once a person crosses the invisible bridge to addiction, that person loses the ability to choose. Further, once crossed, that person is an addict for the rest of their lives even after complete cessation.

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Please. In your lawyer world of combat, you would only get one wack at the ship or tank . . . then stop and check if anyone survived. That is not how targets get eliminated.

---

You know, if you don't like what is above, I didn't write it.
It is what it is, and we have a legal system to interpret and make these decisions.

Let's let the courts decide and perhaps our legislature. Let's go by our system of government and the Constitution, not popular opinion. Our system of government depends upon an informed citizenry to operate as it should. Perhaps not enough of us just don't care enough to be informed enough, except to gripe; that's when they reap what they sowed.

KaiBear said:

---

FDR.....

Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia

Bush's bo.......

The list is almost endless.

But NOW some folks profess to be 'outraged' about Trump's bombing of 'poor fishermen' in ultra high speed boats.


Bull****

---

obamas drone strikes killed > 10,000........

- uncle fred*

... incl. 1 US Citizen.

D!

* UFRI - WAR historian

Go Bears!!

cowboycwr said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Lol. You just made my point and don't realize it. M

According to you and the things you cited we would NEVER be able to attack enemy ships in international waters.

Most of what you cited is also not for military purposes. Or as you note we are not bound to.

You also ignored my point about the survivors being killed under Obama and no one making a big deal about it. There are hundreds of videos showing this. Like helicopters shooting at people walking and then shooting again when they are on the ground.

So until you post something condemning Obama for shooting survivors I know you are not serious.

---

Not a problem. Let the guilt be on him, as well. I have no problem is allowing the legal system to condemn and punish each and all. Additionally, we need to quit allowing Congress to default on such matters and fulfill its function in balancing our system of government.

What did the Republicans do when Obama did these things? Did they file legislation/resolutions to condemn them? It appears that at least a few of these actions were made public in the media. Are we going to blame an apathetic public, the media, Republican legislators for spending such little effort to expose such actions?

Perhaps Trump's methods and his style came about at the right time for some, but perhaps his staff didn't guide him as they should in the steps necessary to get further along in accomplishing his goals and the promises he made. It is possible that what was the right man at the right time, just got knocked off target by a couple of missteps, aggravated by some of the same from his staff. The masses are mad at just about everything, and now the anxiety level appears to be increasing. The public wants to blame someone, and that is usually the leader.

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

---

Or if there was nothing wrong with the tire in the first place. That thumping noise you heard was only in your head...

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

---

Sir,

Decades ago congress tacitly realized, and accepted, that events move far too quickly for the time consuming deliberation of every foreign interaction.

For all of the occasional public grandstanding about 'due process' …..when push comes to shove members of both parties have begrudgingly followed the president's lead.

For example in the event of a sub based nuclear attack on the United States ….the president….our commander in chief …..will have less than 35 MINUTES to decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Hundreds of MILLIONS of people worldwide will die based on his choice.

So if it makes you feel better to declare your willingness to prosecute 'war criminals' …..by all means enjoy yourself.

But it's not a rational response with today's realities.

BUDOS said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Please. In your lawyer world of combat, you would only get one wack at the ship or tank . . . then stop and check if anyone survived. That is not how targets get eliminated.

---

You know, if you don't like what is above, I didn't write it.
It is what it is, and we have a legal system to interpret and make these decisions.

Let's let the courts decide and perhaps our legislature. Let's go by our system of government and the Constitution, not popular opinion. Our system of government depends upon an informed citizenry to operate as it should. Perhaps not enough of us just don't care enough to be informed enough, except to gripe; that's when they reap what they sowed.

---

I am sorry you didn't grasp what I was saying.

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Lol. You just made my point and don't realize it. M

According to you and the things you cited we would NEVER be able to attack enemy ships in international waters.

Most of what you cited is also not for military purposes. Or as you note we are not bound to.

You also ignored my point about the survivors being killed under Obama and no one making a big deal about it. There are hundreds of videos showing this. Like helicopters shooting at people walking and then shooting again when they are on the ground.

So until you post something condemning Obama for shooting survivors I know you are not serious.

---

Obama was involved in this? Huh, didn't know he had involvement. Otherwise what does that have to do with what happened under the current Administration

Please, humor me, why the constant discussion of past Administrations? What does Biden and Obama or Bush and Reagan have to do with this specific incident? I really do not get it. Those are ancient history and I am sure they were discussed at nauseum when they occurred. But, they are immaterial to this discussion.

As for this act.

Attacking sailors at sea that are non-combatants is a crime. I won't say war crime, as we are not at war with anyone. But the investigation is not out of line.

But, so far the only one that seems to get it is Tom Cotton and his comments. It appeared to him that the 2 were trying to get back into the fight (what fight I am not sure of since there was no shots fired at the US). That would make them combatants and legitimate targets. At least someone in this mess appears to have debriefed contact and knows the drill.

Only issue is that there are others saying otherwise. It looks to me like it will need to be played out in the JAG Corps system, which is why it is there (JAG has existed since 1775, rules of war and legality have ALWAYS been part of the military. It is older than the Dec of Independence. It is not some liberal invention.)

Someone said, in your "JAG combat world", got news for you IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A JAG combat world since the beginning. Sums up that you are missing the point. Military action is serious and there are consequences. Everyone hates JAG until they are defending you.

---

The fact that you can't understand why I keep bringing up past presidents shows how blind you are.

I bring them up because the exact same thing has happened in regards to killing survivors but no one made a big deal about it under Obama. Now that it has happened under Trump suddenly everyone cares.

If you don't understand the argument then you are being deliberately obtuse or refusing to see the correlation just so you can "demand" justice because again…. Trump.

---

You are just choosing to play the martyr. Obama was challenged over the Drone strikes and was taken to court. You just choose to ignore it. Obama's 2011 strikes brought up a whole range of Congressional issues and War Powers. THAT IS HOW THE CHECKS AND BALANCES SYSTEM WORKS.

You seem to think if anyone questions Trump it is some conspiracy. Biden was crucified over Afghanistan, Obama was grilled over Drone strikes, Clinton was grilled over Kosovo, Bush was grilled over WMD, Reagan about Grenada and El Salvador. That is Congress job.

This is normal. You kill people, invade, or use bad information, it gets hot. Trump is not getting anymore heat than any other President got. I don't get you guys expecting to not have to explain and defend?

The Mexicans say "Drug Cartels are killing our people"

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

---

Sir,

Decades ago congress tacitly realized, and accepted, that events move far too quickly for the time consuming deliberation of every foreign interaction.

For all of the occasional public grandstanding about 'due process' …..when push comes to shove members of both parties have begrudgingly followed the president's lead.

For example in the event of a sub based nuclear attack on the United States ….the president….our commander in chief …..will have less than 35 MINUTES to decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Hundreds of MILLIONS of people worldwide will die based on his choice.

So if it makes you feel better to declare your willingness to prosecute 'war criminals' …..by all means enjoy yourself.

But it's not a rational response with today's realities.

---

Your version of a rational response is noted and not totally disagreed with. I agree that here are situations where rational behavior is subject to interpretation and dependent upon the series of events and the limited amout of time involved.

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Please. In your lawyer world of combat, you would only get one wack at the ship or tank . . . then stop and check if anyone survived. That is not how targets get eliminated.

---

You know, if you don't like what is above, I didn't write it.
It is what it is, and we have a legal system to interpret and make these decisions.

Let's let the courts decide and perhaps our legislature. Let's go by our system of government and the Constitution, not popular opinion. Our system of government depends upon an informed citizenry to operate as it should. Perhaps not enough of us just don't care enough to be informed enough, except to gripe; that's when they reap what they sowed.

---

I am sorry you didn't grasp what I was saying.

---

Same here.

GrowlTowel said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

---

You going to drone a trap house or an Appalachian meth lab too?

---

Absolutely a method lab.

---

Appreciate the honesty, even if that's a crazy idea.

---

Spend approx 3 years volunteering in a homeless shelter, and witness first hand the horrible damage these drugs are doing to thousands of American families....and you might decide destroying meth labs isn't so crazy.

---

Have spent 20+ years volunteering in some of the worst environments in the world. While I have some empathy, no one is being forced to take drugs. In fact the vast majority of drug use in the U.S. is recreational in nature, and the highest addiction rate is in prescription drugs.

---

Absolutely true, initially. Everyone starts out sober and has the choice to take the first drink/drug. But once a person crosses the invisible bridge to addiction, that person loses the ability to choose. Further, once crossed, that person is an addict for the rest of their lives even after complete cessation.

---

All true, and I vehemently support better treatment strategies in the U.S. However, the vast majority of illicit drug use is recreational in nature. In other words, only a minority of drug users are addicts. Furthermore, of drug addiction as a whole, the majority of addiction revolves around prescription drugs.

Trump just said we've blocked 94% of drugs coming into the US from Venezuela

Assassin said:

---

Trump just said we've blocked 94% of drugs coming into the US from Venezuela

---

which represents how much of the total? 94% of 10% is not alot... How much is it costing us to stop 9% of the drugs? ROI? You guys love talking efficiency.

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Lol. You just made my point and don't realize it. M

According to you and the things you cited we would NEVER be able to attack enemy ships in international waters.

Most of what you cited is also not for military purposes. Or as you note we are not bound to.

You also ignored my point about the survivors being killed under Obama and no one making a big deal about it. There are hundreds of videos showing this. Like helicopters shooting at people walking and then shooting again when they are on the ground.

So until you post something condemning Obama for shooting survivors I know you are not serious.

---

Obama was involved in this? Huh, didn't know he had involvement. Otherwise what does that have to do with what happened under the current Administration

Please, humor me, why the constant discussion of past Administrations? What does Biden and Obama or Bush and Reagan have to do with this specific incident? I really do not get it. Those are ancient history and I am sure they were discussed at nauseum when they occurred. But, they are immaterial to this discussion.

As for this act.

Attacking sailors at sea that are non-combatants is a crime. I won't say war crime, as we are not at war with anyone. But the investigation is not out of line.

But, so far the only one that seems to get it is Tom Cotton and his comments. It appeared to him that the 2 were trying to get back into the fight (what fight I am not sure of since there was no shots fired at the US). That would make them combatants and legitimate targets. At least someone in this mess appears to have debriefed contact and knows the drill.

Only issue is that there are others saying otherwise. It looks to me like it will need to be played out in the JAG Corps system, which is why it is there (JAG has existed since 1775, rules of war and legality have ALWAYS been part of the military. It is older than the Dec of Independence. It is not some liberal invention.)

Someone said, in your "JAG combat world", got news for you IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A JAG combat world since the beginning. Sums up that you are missing the point. Military action is serious and there are consequences. Everyone hates JAG until they are defending you.

---

The fact that you can't understand why I keep bringing up past presidents shows how blind you are.

I bring them up because the exact same thing has happened in regards to killing survivors but no one made a big deal about it under Obama. Now that it has happened under Trump suddenly everyone cares.

If you don't understand the argument then you are being deliberately obtuse or refusing to see the correlation just so you can "demand" justice because again…. Trump.

---

You are just choosing to play the martyr. Obama was challenged over the Drone strikes and was taken to court. You just choose to ignore it. Obama's 2011 strikes brought up a whole range of Congressional issues and War Powers. THAT IS HOW THE CHECKS AND BALANCES SYSTEM WORKS.

You seem to think if anyone questions Trump it is some conspiracy. Biden was crucified over Afghanistan, Obama was grilled over Drone strikes, Clinton was grilled over Kosovo, Bush was grilled over WMD, Reagan about Grenada and El Salvador. That is Congress job.

This is normal. You kill people, invade, or use bad information, it gets hot. Trump is not getting anymore heat than any other President got. I don't get you guys expecting to not have to explain and defend?

---

Not getting anymore heat???? Are you serious??

There are calls by sitting politicians for the military to refuse orders. Post one single politician that did that under Obama. Just one.

There are calls that he should be impeached and charged with war crimes. Please post just one similar call for the same towards Obama.

Afghanistan is now suddenly trying to be shoved back onto Trump as to why Biden failed.

So yeah the standard is suddenly different simply because of the president

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just said we've blocked 94% of drugs coming into the US from Venezuela

---

which represents how much of the total? 94% of 10% is not alot... How much is it costing us to stop 9% of the drugs? ROI? You guys love talking efficiency.

---

While they may be a small percentage of the drugs brought in every little bit helps. Once we stop this origin point then we can focus on the next. And then the next. And so on.

To me it is sort of like when people talk balancing the budget. So many dismiss any idea that doesn't save trillions or hundreds of billions when we just need to find starting points, even if the starting point is simply reducing waste a few $100 million at a time department by department and then focusing on bigger and bigger cuts until eventually we get a balanced budget.

BUDOS said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

---

Sir,

Decades ago congress tacitly realized, and accepted, that events move far too quickly for the time consuming deliberation of every foreign interaction.

For all of the occasional public grandstanding about 'due process' …..when push comes to shove members of both parties have begrudgingly followed the president's lead.

For example in the event of a sub based nuclear attack on the United States ….the president….our commander in chief …..will have less than 35 MINUTES to decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Hundreds of MILLIONS of people worldwide will die based on his choice.

So if it makes you feel better to declare your willingness to prosecute 'war criminals' …..by all means enjoy yourself.

But it's not a rational response with today's realities.

---

Your version of a rational response is noted and not totally disagreed with. I agree that here are situations where rational behavior is subject to interpretation and dependent upon the series of events and the limited amout of time involved.

---

It's not a close call.

Technology has shortened the combat response time.

Which is why I do not believe our commander in chief should be over the age of 70.

And that includes Donald Trump.

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just said we've blocked 94% of drugs coming into the US from Venezuela

---

which represents how much of the total? 94% of 10% is not alot... How much is it costing us to stop 9% of the drugs? ROI? You guys love talking efficiency.

---

While they may be a small percentage of the drugs brought in every little bit helps. Once we stop this origin point then we can focus on the next. And then the next. And so on.

To me it is sort of like when people talk balancing the budget. So many dismiss any idea that doesn't save trillions or hundreds of billions when we just need to find starting points, even if the starting point is simply reducing waste a few $100 million at a time department by department and then focusing on bigger and bigger cuts until eventually we get a balanced budget.

---

At what cost? How much is it costing us to operate in the Gulf? Is this what you want the Ford Battle Group doing? Venezuela is not even a location for drugs coming into the US?

The drugs are a cover for something else. NO ONE spends these resources to stop this small amount. It makes zero sense. Has DOGE looked at this yet? I would love to see the Cost:Benefit Ratio on this. Something else is driving this, oil makes more sense.

KaiBear said:

---

FDR's undeclared naval war against German submarines in the North Atlantic

LBJ's secrete bombing of Laos

Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia

Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia

Bush's bombing campaign in Iraq.

Obama's bombing throughout the Middle East


The list is almost endless.

But NOW some folks profess to be 'outraged' about Trump's bombing of 'poor fishermen' in ultra high speed boats.


Bull****

---

The fact that you are characterizing Bush's bombing of the Middle East as "nobody cared then" really shows how bad your argument is.

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FDR's undeclared naval war against German submarines in the North Atlantic

LBJ's secrete bombing of Laos

Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia

Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia

Bush's bombing campaign in Iraq.

Obama's bombing throughout the Middle East


The list is almost endless.

But NOW some folks profess to be 'outraged' about Trump's bombing of 'poor fishermen' in ultra high speed boats.


Bull****

---

The fact that you are characterizing Bush's bombing of the Middle East as "nobody cared then" really shows how bad your argument is.

---

The fact that you are desperately ignoring how an entire series of presidents have engaged in international killing without congressional approval shows how ridiculous your Trump Derangement Syndrome is.

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

---

Sir,

Decades ago congress tacitly realized, and accepted, that events move far too quickly for the time consuming deliberation of every foreign interaction.

For all of the occasional public grandstanding about 'due process' …..when push comes to shove members of both parties have begrudgingly followed the president's lead.

For example in the event of a sub based nuclear attack on the United States ….the president….our commander in chief …..will have less than 35 MINUTES to decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Hundreds of MILLIONS of people worldwide will die based on his choice.

So if it makes you feel better to declare your willingness to prosecute 'war criminals' …..by all means enjoy yourself.

But it's not a rational response with today's realities.

---

Your version of a rational response is noted and not totally disagreed with. I agree that here are situations where rational behavior is subject to interpretation and dependent upon the series of events and the limited amout of time involved.

---

It's not a close call.

Technology has shortened the combat response time.

Which is why I do not believe our commander in chief should be over the age of 70.

And that includes Donald Trump.

---

HA !!
You are right about one thing not even being a close call.
And that is that I agree that our commander in chief should be over the age of 70 by the day they take office.
And perhaps we should not stop there.

good morning pete.....

- el uncle fred

D!

boom boom.

bang bang.

BUDOS said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.
They were not wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.
They were not wounded or shipwrecked, per US Navy JAG officer watching live video.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.
Yet we have countless videos of our gunships shooting up Taliban columns down to the last man. Look at the Highway of Death in the Iraq War. Are you saying the guy who pulls the trigger on a flame thrower to destroy bunker guilty of a "no quarter" war-crime?

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".
USA is not a party to this treaty.

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.
That refers to flagged vessels, not vessels of designated terrorist groups.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.
Thankfully, a US Navy JAG officer approved in advance the actions we are discussin.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.
This statute is called "The Rivers and Harbors Act." It regulates commercial shipping in our ports, rivers, coastal waterways, and canals.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.
Fortunately, we did not target survivors of a destroyed vehicle. We targeted combatants actively working to repair a damaged vehicle, using communication devices, retrieving cargo, etc......

---

the wheels came off of your post in the 5th word. Not a single one of those things you cited are relevant. But sure was easy to supercopy it somewhere and paste it here.

---

You have your opinion, based on your interpretation, and the amount of time you took to process it thru your belief system. I respect that, and I disagree. Oh, and yes I did copy much of it, which comes from the law, not one's opinion or interpretation of what it says. That, hopefully is for the wheels of justice to decide, to see if the tire needs to be repaired or replaced.

---

Sir,

Decades ago congress tacitly realized, and accepted, that events move far too quickly for the time consuming deliberation of every foreign interaction.

For all of the occasional public grandstanding about 'due process' …..when push comes to shove members of both parties have begrudgingly followed the president's lead.

For example in the event of a sub based nuclear attack on the United States ….the president….our commander in chief …..will have less than 35 MINUTES to decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Hundreds of MILLIONS of people worldwide will die based on his choice.

So if it makes you feel better to declare your willingness to prosecute 'war criminals' …..by all means enjoy yourself.

But it's not a rational response with today's realities.

---

Your version of a rational response is noted and not totally disagreed with. I agree that here are situations where rational behavior is subject to interpretation and dependent upon the series of events and the limited amout of time involved.

---

It's not a close call.

Technology has shortened the combat response time.

Which is why I do not believe our commander in chief should be over the age of 70.

And that includes Donald Trump.

---

HA !!
You are right about one thing not even being a close call.
And that is that I agree that our commander in chief should be over the age of 70 by the day they take office.
And perhaps we should not stop there.

---

Perhaps even 65 years of age.

And it should apply to ALL congressmen, senators, cabinet appointees and especially federal judges.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FDR's undeclared naval war against German submarines in the North Atlantic

LBJ's secrete bombing of Laos

Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia

Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia

Bush's bombing campaign in Iraq.

Obama's bombing throughout the Middle East


The list is almost endless.

But NOW some folks profess to be 'outraged' about Trump's bombing of 'poor fishermen' in ultra high speed boats.


Bull****

---

The fact that you are characterizing Bush's bombing of the Middle East as "nobody cared then" really shows how bad your argument is.

---

The fact that you are desperately ignoring how an entire series of presidents have engaged in international killing without congressional approval shows how ridiculous your Trump Derangement Syndrome is.

---

Whoops. Many of the actions you posted had Cogressional approval. Not only are you wrong about that, but despite Congressional approval, a huge percentage of the country spike out against them, so you are wrong there too.

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FDR's undeclared naval war against German submarines in the North Atlantic

LBJ's secrete bombing of Laos

Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia

Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia

Bush's bombing campaign in Iraq.

Obama's bombing throughout the Middle East


The list is almost endless.

But NOW some folks profess to be 'outraged' about Trump's bombing of 'poor fishermen' in ultra high speed boats.


Bull****

---

The fact that you are characterizing Bush's bombing of the Middle East as "nobody cared then" really shows how bad your argument is.

---

The fact that you are desperately ignoring how an entire series of presidents have engaged in international killing without congressional approval shows how ridiculous your Trump Derangement Syndrome is.

---

Whoops. Many of the actions you posted had Cogressional approval. Not only are you wrong about that, but despite Congressional approval, a huge percentage of the country spike out against them, so you are wrong there too.

---

Which had congressional approval.

Who said anything about public approval you goofus.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FDR's undeclared naval war against German submarines in the North Atlantic

LBJ's secrete bombing of Laos

Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia

Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia

Bush's bombing campaign in Iraq.

Obama's bombing throughout the Middle East


The list is almost endless.

But NOW some folks profess to be 'outraged' about Trump's bombing of 'poor fishermen' in ultra high speed boats.


Bull****

---

The fact that you are characterizing Bush's bombing of the Middle East as "nobody cared then" really shows how bad your argument is.

---

The fact that you are desperately ignoring how an entire series of presidents have engaged in international killing without congressional approval shows how ridiculous your Trump Derangement Syndrome is.

---

Whoops. Many of the actions you posted had Cogressional approval. Not only are you wrong about that, but despite Congressional approval, a huge percentage of the country spike out against them, so you are wrong there too.

---

Which had congressional approval.

Who said anything about public approval you goofus.

---

You did, do you not remember?

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just said we've blocked 94% of drugs coming into the US from Venezuela

---

which represents how much of the total? 94% of 10% is not alot... How much is it costing us to stop 9% of the drugs? ROI? You guys love talking efficiency.

---

While they may be a small percentage of the drugs brought in every little bit helps. Once we stop this origin point then we can focus on the next. And then the next. And so on.

To me it is sort of like when people talk balancing the budget. So many dismiss any idea that doesn't save trillions or hundreds of billions when we just need to find starting points, even if the starting point is simply reducing waste a few $100 million at a time department by department and then focusing on bigger and bigger cuts until eventually we get a balanced budget.

---

At what cost? How much is it costing us to operate in the Gulf? Is this what you want the Ford Battle Group doing? Venezuela is not even a location for drugs coming into the US?

The drugs are a cover for something else. NO ONE spends these resources to stop this small amount. It makes zero sense. Has DOGE looked at this yet? I would love to see the Cost:Benefit Ratio on this. Something else is driving this, oil makes more sense.

---

If they weren't there they would be sailing somewhere else and doing practice. At least this way they are getting live target practice.

So yeah spare me the cost crying when it is stopping something bad.