Pete Hegseth lashes out at 'kill them all' report on boat strikes

[Stann]

View attachment 1191787

A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.

It's nice that you included a photo of a real drug boat , not the one in question. I realize that would blow your argument out of the water completely. Kudos , keep up the lies !
.

 

[Lesh]

View attachment 1191787

A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.

Look at #2. It doesn’t say “destroy without warning”

 

[Lesh]

The last time they had "narco-terrorist" survivors, they released them back to their home country, that didn't have any grounds to arrest them on.

How does that happen?

We “know” these are all TDA terrorists

 

[marvin martian]

Well Trump is channeling Duterte

Who is , by the way, in jail for extrajudicial killing of drug traffickers if memory serves

^^^Hilarious coming from a Nazi who wants to exterminate every Russian man, woman, and child.

 

[Lesh]

^^^Hilarious coming from a Nazi who wants to exterminate every Russian man, woman, and child.

Falling back on that stupid bullshit are ya troll boy?

 

[Stann]

Oh please. They were not carrying people. From the films of the incident itself you can see the barrels and bags.

You are confused or you saw a different video.

 

[Lesh]

Oh please. They were not carrying people. From the films of the incident itself you can see the barrels and bags.

There were eleven people that boat

Trump killed em all and even had to go back to kill the survivors

 

[Stann]

There were eleven people that boat

Trump killed em all and even had to go back to kill the survivors

She obviously never saw the boat in question or is totally brain dead.

 

[meaner gene]

View attachment 1191787

A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.

If all of that is true. Then any time a USS Submarine approaches the surface, it can be blown out of the water.

Look ma.... no flag.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There were eleven people that boat

Trump killed em all and even had to go back to kill the survivors

Say what you posted is true. Eleven drug runners are no more. If they went back to do some clean up, good. So they only thing to be said is good job.

 

[Stann]

Say what you posted is true. Eleven drug runners are no more. If they went back to do some clean up, good. So they only thing to be said is good job.

You can't be that dense. They weren't drug runners ! Wake up !

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at #2. It doesn’t say “destroy without warning”

How do you know there was no warning?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There were eleven people that boat
Trump killed em all and even had to go back to kill the survivors

 

[Stann]

There were eleven people that boat

Trump killed em all and even had to go back to kill the survivors

OMG , trump is backing Hegseth now. He said he never said he would release the tapes. He said ABC was fake news in saying that. They didn't say it , he said it. How stupid do they believe his supporters are. No same person can support this cover up. He also said the two men were trying to upright the boat. It's a 39 foot boat sinking with only the bow above water. Impossible for two men to do. They didn't think this COVER UP through at all. It's not even plausible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you just go with blind faith in Dear Leader

Falling back on that stupid bullshit are ya troll *****?

 

[theHawk]

LOL....

Yeah due process is such a burden....as it should be.

Due process for foreign cartel thugs?

LOL

 

[Stann]

Due process for foreign cartel thugs?

LOL

I don't care what they do to drug runners but it is more than obvious a war crime was committed this one time at least. We cannot use evil tactics to fight evil. , that just makes US just as evil. And now we've murdered innocent people as a result of going down this kill them all road.

 

[theHawk]

I don't care what they do to drug runners but it is more than obvious a war crime was committed this one time at least. We cannot use evil tactics to fight evil. , that just makes US just as evil. And now we've murdered innocent people as a result of going down this kill them all tactic.

Yea sure. Your side is fine with sending bombs to some dumb war halfway across the globe. Your side is fine with mass abortions being performed on perfectly healthy babies.

Spare us the phony outrage.

 

[pknopp]

Yea sure. Your side is fine with sending bombs to some dumb war halfway across the globe. Your side is fine with mass abortions being performed on perfectly healthy babies.

Spare us the phony outrage.

I have consistently been against our wars and I am pro-life.

 

[Nostra]

I don't know about that but in today's news Hegseth ssid he may NEVER release the video after trump said it would be released.saying " no problem "Also released that of the 22 boat bombing 87 people were murdered. Now if you subtract the one questionable boat and it's 11 passengers that means the average number of crew in these boats is 3.62. They don't carry passengers. Let's see how they try to spin this. What story line can they invent to cover up this. They are the ones melting down. Game over !

Your delusions are always entertaining. Batshit crazy, but entertaining.