[T]he Post says Bradley ordered the second strike because the survivors were “legitimate targets,” as they could “theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.” But Goldsmith notes that this would not be an adequate rationale in the face of the laws of war, which the Defense Department binds itself to, and Bradley’s highest duty, says Goldsmith, would have been to refuse to kill the two men regardless of what Hegseth ordered.
It’s a real shame there were no survivors…
Right, survivors = witnesses.
It doesn’t matter if there were any or not. The issuing an order for no quarter that was acted upon is in of itself the crime.
No it matters a lot because a survivor could have said “hey we’re not drug movers” which is the point of my previous comment.
What would matter even more is if Trump, Hegseth, Miller et al had even the slightest degree of credibility in their claims that the people killed were drug traffickers.
So far, the sum total of their reasons is “because I said so.”
Yeah, I’m sure that would have made a difference. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Oh. Thanks for making it clearer. My point is that the “no quarter” order is the crime no matter what, even if it weren’t acted upon.
Oh absolutely.
Which is, of course, the reason there could be no survivors.