The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49469198)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49469213)

You: “but SecWar Pete was authorized by a post that POTUS made while gakked out on addy at 2:30 one morning.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49469479)

https://www.execfunctions.org/p/a-dishonorable-strike?r=4xo6yq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49469525)

“If attacked from the air, you can kill them even after the initial strike.” — No. This is unlawful

Even in a full, declared armed conflict:

The moment individuals are:

out of the fight,

incapacitated,

shipwrecked,

drowning,

wounded,

thrown into the sea,

or otherwise unable to resist,

…they become hors de combat, and it is absolutely prohibited to kill them.

This is not optional.

This is Article 41 of Additional Protocol I (customary even for states not party) and long-standing customary law.

Shipwrecked persons get special protection under Article 12 of Geneva Convention II. They are to be rescued and protected, not attacked.

✔ The doctrine that "combatants cannot surrender to aircraft" exists — but it is narrow.

❌ It does not justify killing incapacitated survivors.

❌ It does not apply to people in the water.

❌ It does not erase war-crime liability for airstrikes.

If the described second strike occurred, it would violate IHL in almost any legal framing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49470320)

if they can’t reasonably be taken into custody then they are not hors de combat

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471028)

It mixes two different concepts and applies the rule for surrender to the completely separate rule for being hors de combat. In LOAC, these are not interchangeable.

Let me break it down in a way that’s airtight.

✅ 1. “Cannot be taken into custody” is relevant ONLY to surrender, NOT to hors de combat

Surrender rule (voluntary submission):

A person is considered to have surrendered only if:

They clearly express an intention to surrender, and

The opposing forces accept that surrender.

Aircraft often cannot accept surrender — so the law lets aircraft continue engaging.

This doctrine applies ONLY to whether surrender has successfully been communicated.

✅ 2. Hors de combat is a TOTALLY different rule

A person becomes hors de combat if ANY of the following are true (under Additional Protocol I, Art. 41 and customary IHL):

They are unconscious or incapacitated by wounds

They have clearly been rendered defenseless

They are shipwrecked (Geneva Convention II, Art. 12)

They are detained or otherwise unable to fight

NONE of these depend on whether the attacker can take them into custody.

The test is about:

their physical condition,

their capacity to fight,

and whether they are defenseless.

Not about whether a helicopter or aircraft is capable of arresting them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471141)

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2011-05-23/us-apache-guns-down-surrendering-insurgents

On February 22 2007, a US helicopter engaged a group of insurgents involved in a mortar attack upon coalition forces, near Baghdad.

After firing a series of 30mm rounds, the crew of the helicopter – callsign “Crazyhorse” – radioed to their command, stating the insurgents “wanted to surrender”. The response was blunt: “CRAZYHORSE cleared to engage … Lawyer stated they cannot surrender to aircraft.”

The Apache crew killed the men.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471308)

“According to Bruderlein, if the allegations are correct, both the crew of the helicopter and the officer who cleared them to engage, would be guilty of war crimes. The lawyer who offered the legal advice would, he believes, not be guilty.”

Lawyers are blameless lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471435)

The guy is Canadian, btw.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49472517)

pwned

https://x.com/briancox_rltw/status/1994943625646747794

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471648)

the second strike never even happened

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49473673)

No one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471043)

It all seems a little silly...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471132)

Double tapping was the practice of shooting enemy corpses as you approached them to ensure they were dead and not just faking it to ambush you. The term was derived from the practice of shooting your enemy twice in the chest to guarantee a mortal wound. A bunch of uppity liberals got pissed and tried to make shooting the enemy a crime, and now there are a bunch of bullshit rules about when and how you can shoot a disabled enemy the irony is that because of the “double tapping is a war crime” crowd, it became standard practice to shoot all the enemies you came across before you walked past them just to ensure you didn’t get pinged for a war crime.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471321)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49472891)

A Florida Law Review article argued that the practice likely is a war crime since it grossly violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which prohibit targeting civilians, the wounded, and those no longer able to continue fighting.[5]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49473714)

Each of the US-relevant links states they were targeting combatants and then criticizes them for collateral damage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49473754)

why would the U.S. want to destroy civilian services that they were paying for?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471422)

they did it in Syria and now in Ukraine. cuz liking women and children in their sleep isn’t enough for you mongrels, gotta get the first responders too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49473530)

https://x.com/gtconway3d/status/1994990468472426924?s=20

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471428)

But Heggie is definitely burning in hell and I cld imagine him never finding another jerb again and joining OnlyFans

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471485)

https://x.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1995145793393795246?t=tRvTiHtzUPiMTa7Iedic-g&s=19

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49471905)

https://x.com/SkylineReport/status/1995216101916176546?t=4qazSz6g8OzWKG9D8bnwqA&s=19

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49473644)

surviving a hellfire strike? doubtful

clinging to burning wreckage in the open seas? laughable

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2)#49473749)