Drug Boat Strike

[Flash]

It appears that somewhere at the SECDEF / COCOM / JTF level, the orders were issued not only to destroy the drug vessels, but also to eliminate the actual drug runners. Presumably these orders went through SJA review. I don't believe these were issued ad hoc as the article paints, but in mission tasking orders that were vetted and planned, and commanders at all levels had the opportunity to sort through the ROE and authorities.

I agree that there is a lot in this story that is suspect. In my experience while working with SOF in Afghanistan and Iraq, senior commanders always had the same person in the chair to their left…the SJA. In one end of tour interview I conducted the SJA actually sat in. Flag officers like Bradley don’t just say, “Hey, the fellas at the Five Sided War Hut on the Potomac said shoot, so shoot.” This strike got the nod from more than one SJA and probably a few politicians.

I think you are both making some pretty big assumptions here, and also presuming that things were done the same way as you previously observed. For example, one of the Secretary's main legal advisors is a Reserve DCO CDR who has no previous experience as a JAG.

The article that kicked this whole thing off appears to have gotten a lot of details right, in addition to exposing it happening in the first place, with some of the main details acknowledged by the White House itself. It even mentions subsequent strikes were not conducted in the same manner. So I would be wary in assuming that things were done as you assume. What once was, may not be so anymore...

Also, from the DoD Law of War Manual:

5.9 PERSONS PLACED HORS DE COMBAT

Persons, including combatants, placed hors de combat may not be made the object of attack. Persons placed hors de combat include the following categories of persons, provided they abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape:

• persons in the power of an adverse party;

• persons not yet in custody, who have surrendered;

• persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck; and

• persons parachuting from aircraft in distress.

5.9.1 Hors de Combat – Notes on Terminology. Hors de combat is a French phrase that means “out of the battle.” It is generally used as a term of art to mean persons who may not be made the object of attack because they are out of the fighting and who therefore must be treated humanely.

Yeah, aside from concentration camps you can't point to the Nuremberg trials and say "see, war crimes!" Besides, the foundation of our doctrine is an amalgamation of German and British warfare.

I am not sure if you are being serious or just trolling, because if it is the former and not the latter that is a ridiculously bad take.

 

[Brett327]

a ridiculously bad take.

This should be Spekkio’s signature tag line.

 

[Flash]

Wall Street Journal article supposedly detailing what led up to Admiral Holsey's early retirement.

 

[Spekkio]

Because it’s not being used as a hospital ship?

No. Because the ROE allow for the Secretary of Defense and President to exercise scaleable engagement options up to, and including, nuclear annihilation of an entire society at their own judgment.

So there might be wartime scenarios where it is desirable to target actual, legitimate hospital ships.

And it's all legal... as long as you win.

I think you are both making some pretty big assumptions here, and also presuming that things were done the same way as you previously observed. For example, one of the Secretary's main legal advisors is a Reserve DCO CDR who has no previous experience as a JAG.

The article that kicked this whole thing off appears to have gotten a lot of details right

Until Commander USSOCOM told Congress that the Secretary of Defense didn't issue an in-situ kill them all order, and suddenly the media lost interest like a fart in the wind.

 

[Brett327]

And it's all legal... as long as you win.

Not legal in any sense of the word... but you can get away with it if you win.

 

[Lawman]

Not legal in any sense of the word... but you can get away with it if you win.

If anyone that was in this briefing truly believed that they were compelled to stop these strikes over a moral obligation they should have walked out into that hallway and demanded Bradley and his staffs (particularly his JAG) to immediately tender their resignation after receiving an under oath play by play of the strike.

That didn’t happen because as has been explained by numerous JAGs on sites not CNN and MS Now, the precedent for reattack exists and simply screaming war crime is a dilution of the term for its convenience to vocalizing the argument. Democrats on the committee are very careful in their wording to press outlets after the brief with terms like disturbing or distressing but nobody going on to declare them criminal.

Let’s be honest with what is going on. There is a vacuum of leadership in the Democratic Party and the person seen as doing the best to resist will be the party leader when it comes time to make a run in a primary. That’s why this is being tried in the court of public opinion. Kelly unabashedly knows he can’t out cool guy Newsom, so if he can get a big scalp on the wall in the form of Hegseth resigning or being fired for political convenience it will go a long way towards securing his position as the anointed party successor. It’s a political equivalent to a big game hunt.

 

[Brett327]

My comment was about torpedoing a hospital ship. The legality of the drug boat strikes remains to be adjudicated, and Bradley's brief was not under oath.

 

[gparks1989]

That didn’t happen because as has been explained by numerous JAGs on sites not CNN and MS Now, the precedent for reattack exists and simply screaming war crime is a dilution of the term for its convenience to vocalizing the argument.

I'd be interested to see the legal argument in support of the second strikes, if you'd share the links. It's seems dubious at best given the hors de combat restrictions, but I don't pretend to be a legal expert.

 

[Lawman]

My comment was about torpedoing a hospital ship. The legality of the drug boat strikes remains to be adjudicated, and Bradley's brief was not under oath.

Are you insinuating that legal review didn’t occur. Office of legal council or theJAG present on the day all those guys just phoned it in live? Do we think it’s realistic that a 4 star combatant commander went into a brief and when asked directly about a “no quarter” order he would just lie/misremember and cover for the narrative.

WaPo got full credibility for producing heresy what happened in the occurrence of that days strikes. Surely those same people could easily testify and refute the admirals point.

Again, where was the earlier weeks bluster claiming war crimes. Seemed to fizzle pretty quickly and now it’s simply demands to declassify video so they can have the fight in the public sphere instead. I’m sorry but I watched this same media tactic get levied into calling me and everybody dropping iron in the fight for Mosul/Raqqa as warcrimes and indiscriminate and it’s crap. We gave CNN tape from our drones showing IS stuffing people into buildings and baiting bombs by throwing stuff on the roof and none of that mattered. It was about embarrassing Trump at the cost of our service members status and this crap stinks of the same “journalistic integrity.”

I'd be interested to see the legal argument in support of the second strikes, if you'd share the links. It's seems dubious at best given the hors de combat restrictions, but I don't pretend to be a legal expert.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1995406709737607440

Only places running this or that I’ve seen talk to him will be right wing. It’s like his opinion is being ignored for some reason… about a third of the way down though he specifically addresses your point.

I’m not saying I don’t have questions, but they are mostly based on weaponeering. Like did we fire these hellfires on the prescribed delay 3 setting that is supposed to be for boats, and if so do we need to reevaluated that setting.

 

[Brett327]

Are you insinuating that legal review didn’t occur.

I'm not. Are you insinuating that a legal review makes it legal de facto? We've got an entire branch of government that adjudicates whether claims made by lawyers are, in fact, legal.

 

[Lawman]

I'm not. Are you insinuating that a legal review makes it legal de facto? We've got an entire branch of government that adjudicates whether claims made by lawyers are, in fact, legal.

It would go to show that actual diligence is being done. Something that is widely announced by critics isn’t occurring because it simply points at Hegseth and starts shrieking.

You’re gonna need to show me the Supreme Court case that resulted in discussing legality of our strikes across the last 25 years that included the CDE estimation and decision when we bombed an actual wedding. In something like 60k executed strikes across the global war on terror to include the ones outside Afghanistan and Iraq where declared hostilities were pretty publicly understood how many actual trips through the judicial branch occurred?

If we can execute a “shadow governor” who runs finance in a country on a kill mission because of risk to forces that might roll over an IED he paid for, or bomb a village in an island chain because the IS aligned target might go abducting American Citizens for extortion and previously killed a German national, kinda hard to say there isn’t a way to legal judo your way to killing personnel involved with smuggling a known hazardous cargo that contributes to the death of nearly 80k civilians annually.

 

[JTS11]

These pussies at the Coast Guard better get with the program, but I guess we only get kinetic with smaller boats bound for Suriname though...Nevermind.

20,000-pound cocaine seizure by Coast Guard breaks 18-year-old record

Video shows Coast Guard vehicles pursuing a go-fast vessel that appeared to have multiple people aboard.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Lawman]

These pussies at the Coast Guard better get with the program, but I guess we only get kinetic with smaller boats bound for Suriname though...Nevermind.

20,000-pound cocaine seizure by Coast Guard breaks 18-year-old record

Video shows Coast Guard vehicles pursuing a go-fast vessel that appeared to have multiple people aboard.

www.cbsnews.com

This is a multi layered defense.

Anybody that thinks the admin is mad the coast guard (or the troops on the border) aren’t executing to the maximum extent of the authority they have to do the mission (stop this shit from getting here) are making a narrative where it doesn’t exist.

 

[Brett327]

It would go to show that actual diligence is being done.

Diligence doesn’t make it legal. This weekend, someone is working on an outline of a charging document for those involved. Somewhere else, someone is working on the language of a presidential pardon for those involved. Before this all plays out, we will see one or both documents become a matter of public record.

Meanwhile, the full video of the strike, which made one person who viewed it vomit, will become public… and the public will be justifiably horrified at what their military is doing on their behalf. The public will have questions for their elected representatives, and more dominos will fall.

 

[Lawman]

Diligence doesn’t make it legal. This weekend, someone is working on an outline of a charging document for those involved. Somewhere else, someone is working on the language of a presidential pardon for those involved. Before this all plays out, we will see one or both documents become a matter of public record.

Meanwhile, the full video of the strike, which made one person who viewed it vomit, will become public… and the public will be justifiably horrified at what their military is doing on their behalf. The public will have questions for their elected representatives, and more dominos will fall.

Sure…good for them. I’d remind the room the LOAC says maiming is illegal and we have a missile that literally deploys blades to kill with minimal cde.

We bombed a wedding party to kill 1 guy, but somehow blowingup people funneling poison via water will make people sick.

Like I said earlier and your post said indirectly, this isn’t about what is legal or what is correct from a standpoint of military capacity, it’s about presenting this as abhorrent for political means entirely. This is entirely an effort to expose Americans to the realities of combat and say, “you should be ashamed (but only while this party is doing it),” while meanwhile ignoring all the three places that combat hurts or maims people for other more, “Noble,” political means.

Show the world the boat strikes. Maybe then we can stop hearing the term allegedly when it’s clear nobody was fishing from the submarine we blew up a month ago.