Congressional committees to scrutinize U.S. killing of boat strike survivors

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Republican-led committees in the Senate and the House say they will amplify their scrutiny of the Pentagon after a Washington Post report revealing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken order to kill all crew members aboard a vessel suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea several weeks ago.

A live drone feed showed two survivors from the original crew of 11 clinging to the wreckage of their boat after the initial missile attack Sept. 2, The Post reported Friday afternoon. The Special Operations commander overseeing the operation then ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation, killing both survivors. Those people, along with five others in the original report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Late Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the committee’s top Democrat, issued a statement saying that the committee “is aware of recent news reports — and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels.” The committee, they said, “has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

The leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-Alabama) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), followed suit late Saturday. In a brief joint statement, the pair said they are “taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.” The committee, they noted, is “committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s military operations in the Caribbean.”’

https://wapo.st/48k7g1S

There’s no confidence Congressional Republicans will provide any type of oversight, certainly not rigorous.

Like others on the right, they’ll ignore Trump’s lawless, criminal attacks on civilian boats, including the murder of two civilians who survived one such attack.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the BOOM!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Welcome To Sectarian Supremacy By Sanctimonious Sacrosanct Psychopaths "

* You Might Be A Homicidal Maniac If *

‘Republican-led committees in the Senate and the House say they will amplify their scrutiny of the Pentagon after a Washington Post report revealing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken order to kill all crew members aboard a vessel suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea several weeks ago.

A live drone feed showed two survivors from the original crew of 11 clinging to the wreckage of their boat after the initial missile attack Sept. 2, The Post reported Friday afternoon. The Special Operations commander overseeing the operation then ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation, killing both survivors. Those people, along with five others in the original report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Late Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the committee’s top Democrat, issued a statement saying that the committee “is aware of recent news reports — and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels.” The committee, they said, “has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

The leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-Alabama) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), followed suit late Saturday. In a brief joint statement, the pair said they are “taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.” The committee, they noted, is “committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s military operations in the Caribbean.”’

https://wapo.st/48k7g1S

There’s no confidence Congressional Republicans will provide any type of oversight, certainly not rigorous.

Like others on the right, they’ll ignore Trump’s lawless, criminal attacks on civilian boats, including the murder of two civilians who survived one such attack.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47

The Geneva Conventions prohibit the execution of unarmed combatants, which includes those who have surrendered or are incapacitated (hors de combat). They require that all persons not participating in hostilities, or who are no longer participating due to wounds, sickness, or surrender, be treated humanely. Executing such individuals without a prior judgment from a regularly constituted court is a grave breach of international humanitarian law.

Protection for unarmed and incapacitated individuals

• "Hors de combat": This term applies to individuals who are no longer able to fight due to sickness, wounds, shipwreck, or who have laid down their arms.
• Humane treatment: These persons must be treated humanely, and any violence to life, torture, cruel treatment, and executions are prohibited.
• Surrender: A combatant who clearly indicates surrender by, for example, raising their hands or waving a white flag, must be allowed to do so unconditionally. The adversary must cease fire immediately, and the individual should be treated as a prisoner of war.

Prohibitions on execution

• No execution without trial: The Geneva Conventions explicitly forbid carrying out executions without a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, which must provide all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• No execution for convenience: Commanders cannot execute prisoners for reasons such as their presence retarding movements, consuming supplies, or for self-preservation.
• "Unlawful combatants": Even those who do not qualify as combatants under international law, sometimes referred to as "unlawful combatants," cannot be executed without a trial. If they have committed a war crime, they can be prosecuted, but they are still entitled to the fair trial guarantees of the Geneva Conventions.

Implications of the law

• Grave breaches: Executing unarmed or surrendered combatants is considered a "grave breach," meaning that the perpetrators must be pursued and tried or extradited, regardless of their nationality.
• Role of the Red Cross: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays a crucial role in reminding parties to a conflict of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions and provides services to assist prisoners of war, the wounded, and sick.

 

[elektra]

Soinds like two senators want five minutes if fame.

Trump does nothing without consulting the top lawyers in the country which includes retired judges.

Trump is fine, unless those which are projecting their fascism onto MAGA and Trump regain power.

 

[WEATHER53]

More third party somebody said somebody saw

 

[Godboy]

‘Republican-led committees in the Senate and the House say they will amplify their scrutiny of the Pentagon after a Washington Post report revealing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken order to kill all crew members aboard a vessel suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea several weeks ago.

A live drone feed showed two survivors from the original crew of 11 clinging to the wreckage of their boat after the initial missile attack Sept. 2, The Post reported Friday afternoon. The Special Operations commander overseeing the operation then ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation, killing both survivors. Those people, along with five others in the original report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Late Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the committee’s top Democrat, issued a statement saying that the committee “is aware of recent news reports — and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels.” The committee, they said, “has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

The leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-Alabama) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), followed suit late Saturday. In a brief joint statement, the pair said they are “taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.” The committee, they noted, is “committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s military operations in the Caribbean.”’

https://wapo.st/48k7g1S

There’s no confidence Congressional Republicans will provide any type of oversight, certainly not rigorous.

Like others on the right, they’ll ignore Trump’s lawless, criminal attacks on civilian boats, including the murder of two civilians who survived one such attack.

Wait, the problem is taking a second shot? If we dont kill them with the first strike, its illegal to shoot another missile to finish the job?

When have we EVER followed that weird as **** rule? Cops dont have that rule, the FBI doesnt have that rule, and neither do military members. That isnt a thing.

You people are dumb as shit.

 

[WEATHER53]

Wait, the problem is taking a second shot? If we dont kill them with the first strike, its illegal to shoot another missile to finish the job?

When have we EVER followed that weird as **** rule? Cops dont have that rule, the FBI doesnt have that rule, and neither do military members. That isnt a thing.

You people are dumb as shit.

We must be kind to all heinous criminals at all times. They are people too
Lib 101

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Wait, the problem is taking a second shot? If we dont kill them with the first strike, its illegal to shoot another missile to finish the job?

When have we EVER followed that weird as **** rule? Cops dont have that rule, the FBI doesnt have that rule, and neither do military members. That isnt a thing.

You people are dumb as shit.

Cops, FBI & the military - all the same thing, operating under the same rules according to you right?

 

[westwall]

Cops, FBI & the military - all the same thing, operating under the same rules according to you right?

It's not a judicial operation. It's a MILITARY operation.

 

[Godboy]

Cops, FBI & the military - all the same thing, operating under the same rules according to you right?

When the FBI shoots a suspect, but he doesnt die, they keep shooting.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

" Welcome To Sectarian Supremacy By Sanctimonious Sacrosanct Psychopaths "

* You Might Be A Homicidal Maniac If *

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47

The Geneva Conventions prohibit the execution of unarmed combatants, which includes those who have surrendered or are incapacitated (hors de combat). They require that all persons not participating in hostilities, or who are no longer participating due to wounds, sickness, or surrender, be treated humanely. Executing such individuals without a prior judgment from a regularly constituted court is a grave breach of international humanitarian law.

Protection for unarmed and incapacitated individuals

• "Hors de combat": This term applies to individuals who are no longer able to fight due to sickness, wounds, shipwreck, or who have laid down their arms.
• Humane treatment: These persons must be treated humanely, and any violence to life, torture, cruel treatment, and executions are prohibited.
• Surrender: A combatant who clearly indicates surrender by, for example, raising their hands or waving a white flag, must be allowed to do so unconditionally. The adversary must cease fire immediately, and the individual should be treated as a prisoner of war.

Prohibitions on execution

• No execution without trial: The Geneva Conventions explicitly forbid carrying out executions without a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, which must provide all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• No execution for convenience: Commanders cannot execute prisoners for reasons such as their presence retarding movements, consuming supplies, or for self-preservation.
• "Unlawful combatants": Even those who do not qualify as combatants under international law, sometimes referred to as "unlawful combatants," cannot be executed without a trial. If they have committed a war crime, they can be prosecuted, but they are still entitled to the fair trial guarantees of the Geneva Conventions.

Implications of the law

• Grave breaches: Executing unarmed or surrendered combatants is considered a "grave breach," meaning that the perpetrators must be pursued and tried or extradited, regardless of their nationality.
• Role of the Red Cross: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays a crucial role in reminding parties to a conflict of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions and provides services to assist prisoners of war, the wounded, and sick.

Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with these drug interdiction actions

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Abandoning All Principles In Non Violence For Pretentious Rules Of Engagement Against Existential Threats "

* Carnal Canines Absolves Its Selves Of Accountability *

Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with these drug interdiction actions

Feel free to elaborate on rules of law related with the drug interdiction actions .

Is yearn supposition that international waters are not within us jurisdiction and therefore any perceived assailant is not entitled to equal protection of us laws and can be summarily executed as an imminent threat even though incapacitated ?

* Contentions Within Principles Of Non Violence *

A law exists because there is an entity capable of and issuing a retort for a violation of some legal construct such as a state or a federate , or a potentate .

Prior to entering into a social civil agreement according to a constitution , individuals are subject to natural freedoms within nature and , to improve ones opportunity for survival and quality of life , individuals exchange natural freedoms for rites " protected " through retort .

The principles of non violence define violence as illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

There is a torrential contention within principles of non violence , as to the extent one may exercise self defense to abate illegitimate aggression , else self defense be over extended and become illegitimate aggression .

* Determining Fates *

A rule of nature may be that consequences of an event become determinants within a composite of determinants that are capable of affecting outcomes of potential events .

 

[EvilCat Breath]

" Abandoning All Principles In Non Violence For Pretentious Rules Of Engagement Against Existential Threats "

* Carnal Canines Absolves Its Selves Of Accountability *

Feel free to elaborate on rules of law related with the drug interdiction actions .

Is yearn supposition that international waters are not within us jurisdiction and therefore any perceived assailant is not entitled to equal protection of us laws and can be summarily executed as an imminent threat even though incapacitated ?

* Contentions Within Principles Of Non Violence *

A law exists because there is an entity capable of and issuing a retort for a violation of some legal construct such as a state or a federate , or a potentate .

Prior to entering into a social civil agreement according to a constitution , individuals are subject to natural freedoms within nature and , to improve ones opportunity for survival and quality of life , individuals exchange natural freedoms for rites " protected " through retort .

The principles of non violence define violence as illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

There is a torrential contention within principles of non violence , as to the extent one may exercise self defense t

In any event i personally have zero respect for principles of non violencel

o abate illegitimate aggression , else self defense be over extended and become illegitimate aggression .

* Determining Fates *

A rule of nature may be that consequences of an event become determinants within a composite of determinants that are capable of affecting outcomes of potential events .

What kind of vomit is this? The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with principles of non violence. They came out of atrocities of World War I and deal with armies not criminals. To even claim any benefit,of the Conventions the combatant must be in uniform.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mitigating Factors After Incapacitated Risks "

* Basic Foundations Of Civics And Political Science For Us Republic *

In any event i personally have zero respect for principles of non violencel

Us republic and us republicanism are founded on independence of the individual , which relies upon principles of non violence to determine valid limits of negative liberties among individuals for safety and security , where negative liberties are to be equally protected among individuals , whether an individual is a us citizen , or us corporation , or a greater collective of individuals such as a us state , or us federate , or a civil litigant .

. Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ? .


* Comparative Ethical Limits Of Self Defense And Independent Review *

What kind of vomit is this? The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with principles of non violence.

The conclusions for a geneva convention include a similar ethical dilemma included in principles of non violence , which seeks to determine when self defense against violence becomes illegitimate aggression .

The principles of non violence define violence as illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

There is a torrential contention within principles of non violence , as to the extent one may exercise self defense to abate illegitimate aggression , else self defense be over extended and become illegitimate aggression .


* Considering Options Given Agreements With International Law *

They came out of atrocities of World War I and deal with armies not criminals. To even claim any benefit,of the Conventions the combatant must be in uniform.

Sew ewe are asserting that geneva convention affords a benefit of a doubt to those incapacitated , that they may have been conscripted , however it only applies to standing uniform armies .

A law exists because there is an entity capable of and issuing a retort for a violation of some legal construct such as a state or a federate , or a potentate , such as united nations or another country .

. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-rele...-united-states-against-vessels-sea-may-amount .


* Granting Absolution To Liquidate *

. Zone1 - Why Do Zealots Justify Violence Because Their Goad Will Not Do It ? .

 

[WEATHER53]

Next time just leave them in the water and maybe less lib loon crying for criminals

 

[WEATHER53]

In any event i personally have zero respect for principles of non violencel

What kind of vomit is this? The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with principles of non violence. They came out of atrocities of World War I and deal with armies not criminals. To even claim any benefit,of the Conventions the combatant must be in uniform.

More lib loon lying and crying for criminals

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm still curious why anyone would object to stopping illegal drugs coming to the United States

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Legal Positivism Challenges Conjectural Association Between Morality And Law "

* Prohibitionists Still Loitering For The Eighteenth Amendment *

I'm still curious why anyone would object to stopping illegal drugs coming to the United States

Which drugs , as the threat to safety or security of us public must be valid and significant .

A large net is being cast based upon a motivation to mitigate a significant public safety risk from fentanyl , because those casting the net generally assert that all drugs represent a significant threat to safety and security of us public .

Apparently strump is not opposed to cocaine , having released convicted joh of honduras , while congress passed a resolution to federally outlaw ( possibly confiscate ) all hemp in 2026 .

. Fentanyl: One Pill Kills | Texas Health and Human Services .