US Military's "War on Drugs" Sparks Outrage Over Alleged War Crimes
A recent series of strikes by the US military against vessels suspected of carrying illicit narcotics has sparked widespread outrage over alleged war crimes. The strikes have resulted in the deaths of at least 81 people in more than 20 attacks, with many survivors left clinging to debris after being hit.
While the Trump administration has maintained that the strikes are lawful under international law, experts say that the US is not engaged in an armed conflict with traffickers. Instead, they argue that the US is treating a "criminal menace" as a "wartime enemy", which raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the attacks.
The controversy began to simmer after a report by the Washington Post revealed that a second strike was carried out after the first failed to kill everyone on board. The follow-up strike reportedly killed two survivors who were clinging to the side of the vessel, sparking outrage and calls for an investigation into possible war crimes.
Legal experts say that the US has breached international law with its actions, citing the principle of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. "It is manifestly unlawful to kill someone who's been shipwrecked," said Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo law school. "This is such a longstanding textbook principle of the law of armed conflict."
The US military's own Law of War manual prohibits attacking wounded, sick, or shipwrecked personnel, and also addresses the issue of illegal orders. The manual states that subordinates have a duty to refuse to comply with orders that are clearly illegal or that they know are illegal.
Experts say that the administration's attempts to justify the strikes as part of an armed conflict are " fundamentally flawed". "If one of them is struck multiple times, which means, inevitably, there are wounded and sick or wounded enemy sailors on that ship and it continues to fight, you don't stop fighting back because of the potential harm to the wounded sailors," said Geoffrey Corn, a former senior adviser to the US army on warfare law.
The controversy has sparked calls for an investigation into possible war crimes, with several Republican-led congressional committees vowing to look into the matter. The administration has responded by suggesting that Adm Frank Bradley, the commander in charge of the operation, was targeting the disabled vessel and the drugs it presumably carried, rather than killing survivors.
However, experts say that this explanation raises more questions than answers. "I think the first question for the admiral is: what was your target on the second strike? Was it the boat, or was it the crew members?" said Corn. "If it's the crew, you have a real problem, because that's simply improper."
As the controversy continues to unfold, many are calling for greater transparency and accountability from the administration. "The focus on the second strike risked obscuring the flimsy legal case for the boat strikes," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser of the International Crisis Group. "There's a risk here of losing sight of the forest for the trees."
A recent series of strikes by the US military against vessels suspected of carrying illicit narcotics has sparked widespread outrage over alleged war crimes. The strikes have resulted in the deaths of at least 81 people in more than 20 attacks, with many survivors left clinging to debris after being hit.
While the Trump administration has maintained that the strikes are lawful under international law, experts say that the US is not engaged in an armed conflict with traffickers. Instead, they argue that the US is treating a "criminal menace" as a "wartime enemy", which raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the attacks.
The controversy began to simmer after a report by the Washington Post revealed that a second strike was carried out after the first failed to kill everyone on board. The follow-up strike reportedly killed two survivors who were clinging to the side of the vessel, sparking outrage and calls for an investigation into possible war crimes.
Legal experts say that the US has breached international law with its actions, citing the principle of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. "It is manifestly unlawful to kill someone who's been shipwrecked," said Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo law school. "This is such a longstanding textbook principle of the law of armed conflict."
The US military's own Law of War manual prohibits attacking wounded, sick, or shipwrecked personnel, and also addresses the issue of illegal orders. The manual states that subordinates have a duty to refuse to comply with orders that are clearly illegal or that they know are illegal.
Experts say that the administration's attempts to justify the strikes as part of an armed conflict are " fundamentally flawed". "If one of them is struck multiple times, which means, inevitably, there are wounded and sick or wounded enemy sailors on that ship and it continues to fight, you don't stop fighting back because of the potential harm to the wounded sailors," said Geoffrey Corn, a former senior adviser to the US army on warfare law.
The controversy has sparked calls for an investigation into possible war crimes, with several Republican-led congressional committees vowing to look into the matter. The administration has responded by suggesting that Adm Frank Bradley, the commander in charge of the operation, was targeting the disabled vessel and the drugs it presumably carried, rather than killing survivors.
However, experts say that this explanation raises more questions than answers. "I think the first question for the admiral is: what was your target on the second strike? Was it the boat, or was it the crew members?" said Corn. "If it's the crew, you have a real problem, because that's simply improper."
As the controversy continues to unfold, many are calling for greater transparency and accountability from the administration. "The focus on the second strike risked obscuring the flimsy legal case for the boat strikes," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser of the International Crisis Group. "There's a risk here of losing sight of the forest for the trees."
. newsflash: it's not war, it's a war crime. and yeah, let's keep calling out the republicans too for being complicit in this mess 
.
The US military is really good at doing stuff that makes you question what it means to be a superpower 
. I mean, who needs international law when you've got a 'War on Drugs' to justify blowing up innocent people? 
It's not like the traffickers are going anywhere or anything, right? The real question is, what happens when the people who get caught in the crossfire start calling for accountability? 
what's going on with this US military thing? They're just gonna keep killing innocent people and call it a war crime investigation? 
Newsflash: using force against someone who's already been injured is never okay! 
It's like they think they can just rewrite the rules as they go along. I mean, what's next? "We're in a state of emergency"... no, you're not! You're in a mess, plain and simple. And don't even get me started on this whole 'treating traffickers like a wartime enemy' thing... it's just so reckless. 
The way they're just treating these people as enemies just because they're on a boat with some drugs on board is crazy 
. It's like they're not even considering human lives, you know? And what really gets me is that the administration is trying to justify this by saying it's all part of an "armed conflict" but experts are saying that's just a load of BS 
.
. And what's with the second strike? If the first one didn't kill everyone, why bother with another one? That's just reckless 
. The fact that they're trying to cover this up and say it was all part of some "legitimate" operation just makes me want to shout 
.
OMG, this is super concerning 
. Experts are saying the administration is basically making up its own rules here 
That's just a fancy way of saying they're trying to cover their tracks 
. We need more transparency and accountability from the admin on this one 
it's literally to die for! I mean, have you guys ever noticed how some flavors can completely change a dessert from meh to OMG? Anyway, what's up with this whole US military thing... isn't the whole "war on drugs" just kinda a fancy way of saying "we're not gonna bother trying to solve actual problems"? I'm no expert but it seems like they're more worried about looking cool than actually getting things done 
. And can we talk about how some of these military uniforms look like they were designed by a bad 90s fashion trend archive?