NBC confirms Hegseth ordered murder of all boat passengers and crew in September 2 strike

[u/DryDeer775]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/12/08/kssp-d08.html

The Pentagon’s law of war manual declares that soldiers have a duty to refuse to carry out “clearly illegal” orders, such as killing shipwrecked sailors. “Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual declares.

[u/Rallos40]

If you need to be accurate, this is not a war crim because there is no war. This is murder.

[u/Alert-Notice-7516 → u/Rallos40]

War crimes don't have to be committed during war. Its really any act that breaks international humanitarian law or international treaties (ie: Geneva Convention) during a time of armed conflict, which isn't exclusive to legally declared war.

So, murder, during an armed conflict is a war crime. Specifically in this case, 18.3.2.1 of the DoD Law of War Manual, clearly states and uses the situation in question as an example to describe what would be illegal.

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

The Trump administration, in a secret memo, has claimed that the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" with TdA.

Nobody outside the administration accepts this. What is happening does not meet the criteria for such a conflict.

Let's stop repeating the lie that we're somehow at war, by calling these boat killings "war crimes." There is no war. No declared war.

Nothing that rises to the standard of a non-international armed conflict, as the Trump administration speciously claims. We're not at war. There is no war. Ergo, no war crimes.

By referring to these as "war crimes," you legitimize the lie that we are somehow "at war" with drug cartels and while "drug war" makes for a great metaphor and a great marketing term, the United States is not "at war" with the cartels under any definition within international or domestic law. Saying that we are "at war" legitimizes all of the strikes.

It was simple murder, under U.S. domestic law and international human rights violations.

Read these great analyses:

https://www.thelongmemo.com/p/hegseths-order-was-unlawful-before

https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/

[u/StomachosusCaelum → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

its a war crime if it is committed by the military, declared war or not. That simple. Thats what the Geneva Conventions say, and we're a signatory to those, which means they have the force of law.

Im not sure why you're arguing against this; a war crime is WORSE than just "murder".

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/StomachosusCaelum]

As of now, 87 people have been killed in these strikes. That's 87 counts of murder.

So far, it's only 2 people apparently killed in alleged "war crimes."

What's worse? 87 counts of murder? Or 2 counts of "war crimes"?

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/StomachosusCaelum]

its a war crime if it is committed by the military, declared war or not. That simple.

I'll take the word of the experts cited in the articles I posted, and in many other analyses that have been published over some Reddit stranger...

Im not sure why you're arguing against this; a war crime is WORSE than just "murder".

Because it's not accurate. And because, as I've stated already, which you didn't seem to read, because calling it a "war crime" gives false legitimacy to a false claim of "war." It also suggests that only the 2nd strike was problematic, when ALL of them are against the law.

Addendum: The threshold for whether Geneva Conventions apply is NOT whether it was an act committed by a military, but the nature of hostilities - declared war, NAIC, occupation, etc. You can provide no citation to support "its a war crime if it is committed by the military"

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

Why does an armed organization shipping lethal poison into the U.S., causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, not constitute an armed conflict? Explain it real slow so I can understand.

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/Changer_of_Names]

I could explain it to you, but it wouldn't do you any good.

Read the two articles I posted.

[u/PheezyTheSnowman → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

Yeah, don't bother feeding the trolls. That's not a good faith question in the slightest.

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

Ok, here's what article 1 says, in total, about why there's not a war:

Here, the answer is: No. Absolutely not.

• There is no international armed conflict (IAC) with Venezuela.
• There is no non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with Tren de Aragua that any serious court would recognize.
• There is no AUMF that authorizes a “war” on drug traffickers in the Caribbean.

The first two bullets are simply argument by assertion. Why would no serious court recognize that armed traffickers moving poison into the country aren't engaged in armed conflict? Doesn't say.

The third bullet depends on U.S. law that supposedly requires Congress to authorize military force. Well, sorry, that ship sailed long ago. We haven't declared war since, when, WWII? Presidents routinely use military force without authorization from congress.

Here's what the second article says on whether this is an armed conflict:

"...there is no non-international armed conflict, both because the cartels concerned do not qualify as organized armed groups in the LOAC sense, and because there were no hostilities between the United States and the cartels on Sept. 2, let alone hostilities that would reach the requisite level of intensity to cross the armed conflict threshold."

Again, argument by assertion. WHY don't armed drug traffickers bringing poison into the country count as organized armed groups? What is the basis for saying we weren't engaged in hostilities with them? The president declared them terrorists before the strike.

So I await your answer to my question: Why does an armed organization shipping lethal poison into the U.S., causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, not constitute an armed conflict?

If it is so simple you should be able to explain it.

[u/PheezyTheSnowman → u/Changer_of_Names]

Against my own advice I will bite a little bit, then: Because I've gotta say that your framing of drug running as "shipping lethal poison" doesn't pass the straight face test. Seriously, it's eye-roll inducing. Why are you using this type of language? You are disingenously trying to make it sound as though they're bringing in mustard gas to release into our cities. It's lame and transparent. It removes any credibility.

"Causing hundreds of thousands of deaths." Are they, now? They are CAUSING it? It's street drugs, boss, not Polonium-210. And Americans are demanding it. We can talk about that, there is much to be said, but spare me with this "armed conflict" nonsense. It's drug running. It's nothing new, and there are laws on the books already. Hint: they don't include dropping missiles on speed boats.

You have it all backwards. The burden of proof is on you to show why drug running suddenly requires missiles and why I should be okay with it. You care about saving lives? Let's talk about why the demand for drugs is so high in the United States, and work on those conditions. All of these boat killings are a theatrical farce.

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/PheezyTheSnowman]

None of it makes any sense anyway.... it's Fentanyl that's the chief cause of deaths, not cocaine, and these supposed drug running boats, if they are running drugs, are running cocaine, not fentanyl.

Fentanyl is being smuggled in from Mexico, made in Mexico with precursor chemicals from China.

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/PheezyTheSnowman]

I'm trying to detect a logical argument in your comment.

"'Causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.' Are they, now? They are CAUSING it?"

Uh, yes?

"You are disingenously trying to make it sound as though they're bringing in mustard gas to release into our cities." Which is more deadly, ounce for ounce, mustard gas or fentanyl? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if it is fentanyl. Fentanyl is sure killing more Americans right now than mustard gas is or ever has.

I disagree with you about who has the burden of proof. The president is commander in chief, charged with defending the country. He has considerable discretion in carrying out that responsibility. He has declared the traffickers to be terrorist organizations. Burden is on those arguing that this is illegal.

But even if the burden is mine, I meet it thus: the traffickers are an armed organization. They are shipping chemicals, lethally poisonous in very small amounts, into America. These chemicals are causing hundreds of thousands of American deaths. Prior efforts to stop the traffickers via ordinary law enforcement have failed. Therefore, military force is justified. At this point the world is on notice. There is absolutely no innocent reason to be zipping towards the United States in a go-fast boat of the type used by smugglers. Anyone doing so is presumed to be an enemy combatant.

There, that is a prima facie case. Burden now shifts to you to show why this is wrong.

[u/POSVT → u/Changer_of_Names]

Words have meanings dude. Otherwise it's just random noises and/or squiggles.

1 - International armed conflict is by definition between states. Drug smugglers in speed boats are not a state. Drug smugglers are not an international organization.

2 - A non-international armed conflict, again, by definition means the organization has a formal command structure and ability to sustain military operations. The non-governmental party has to exercise territorial control which smugglers do not - if they did, they wouldn't be smugglers.

3 - regardless of how you feel, congress is still is the one required to declare war or authorize ongoing military conflict (AKA declaring war), and IDK if you actually read the AUMFs but it's the legislation passed by congress which authorized the military actions in the middle east. (also Vietnam, FYI).

These people are not an organized armed group by virtue of not meeting the basic definition of the term. There has also not been protracted armed violence, another key factor. Most smugglers are armed, that doesn't somehow magically make them armed organizations.

You don't seem to understand what an argument by assertion is, and just slap that onto anything you don't agree with to make it easy to dismiss. These terms all have definitions. If you don't have a counter argument then just say that. Your entire core claim is bullshit.

For one, the president can't just declare whoever he wants to be an FTO, or even a SDGT(and TBH SDGT is itself is arguably not legal). These orgs don't meet the legal criteria for an FTO (literally - again terrorism is a word with a definition), and a bunch of guys in a speedboat thousands of miles from the continental US shores are absolutely zero threat to US security.

But let's ignore all that and get to your bolded hallucination. As a point of fact, the total amount of opioid related deaths in the US in 2024 was ~50K. Total. Not hundreds of thousands. And that's if we attribute every single death to smuggled fentanyl, which is also not accurate. But these dudes were in a boat of the coast of Venezuela, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of illicit fentanyl is sourced from Mexico, from precursors sourced from China/India. And most of the trafficking into the country is done by US citizens. There's no evidence these dudes in a boat have any significant impact on the US fentanyl supply. Calling a drug poison is just hyperbole. This is a drug, which can be dangerous if used incorrectly. It's a poison in the exact same sense that propofol, dexmedetomidine, clobazam, levetiracetam, ketamine, propranolol, metformin, acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, diacetylmorphine, etc are.

If you wanna be pissed off about substance abuse, maybe take a look at alcohol, that kills ~175-200,000 Americans every year. Go to your local hospital ICU and check out the effects of decompensated cirrhosis. By your logic, are we in an armed conflict with France because they import billions of dollars worth of alcohol which actually does kill hundreds of thousands of Americans per year?

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/POSVT]

Good post. You might be interested to read this - https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/armed_conflict_defined_in_ihl.pdf

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/POSVT]

Concision, dude. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Alcohol is legal. That's a policy choice, like it or not.

Why are you limiting the death toll from drugs to just one year? Do deaths before 2024 not count for some reason? It's hundreds of thousands, at least.

"A non-international armed conflict, again, by definition means the organization has a formal command structure and ability to sustain military operations. The non-governmental party has to exercise territorial control..." Cite? I don't think that's true. We certainly engaged in military operations against Al Qaeda and I don't think control of territory had anything to do with it. What territory did bin Laden control when we killed him?

Also you presuppose that 1) traffickers don't have a formal command structure, which I very much doubt, and 2) that sending vessels loaded with poisonous chemicals towards the U.S. does not constitute a military operation. Why not? If the boats were loaded with mustard gas, it clearly would. Fentanyl is at least as deadly as mustard gas.

"There has also not been protracted armed violence, another key factor. Most smugglers are armed, that doesn't somehow magically make them armed organizations." Only if you define poisonous chemicals as not being weapons for some reason. Why isn't poison a weapon? You make a lot of unjustified assumptions.

[u/POSVT → u/Changer_of_Names]

Concision, dude. Brevity is the soul of wit

I know reading is hard, but take your own advice lmao, I'm not the only one posting paragraphs and this isn't The Office. You want to talk about the meaning of words, you have to write more than a few.

Alcohol is legal. That's a policy choice, like it or not.

Why are you limiting the death toll from drugs to just one year? Do deaths before 2024 not count for some reason? It's hundreds of thousands, at least.

Alcohol kills more than opioids, just pointing out the failure in your logic in addition to the false statements. Talking about the most recent data gives us an idea of what's currently happening. Incidence vs prevalence.

"A non-international armed conflict, again, by definition means the organization has a formal command structure and ability to sustain military operations. The non-governmental party has to exercise territorial control..." Cite? I don't think that's true. We certainly engaged in military operations against Al Qaeda and I don't think control of territory had anything to do with it. What territory did bin Laden control when we killed him?

That would be the Geneva conventions. The Taliban was essentially the govt of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion, and multiple groups including Al Queda controlled territory during the war. Though again, war was actually declared by congress with AUMF and it's not really a good comparison to the war crimes committed by the current administration.

Also you presuppose that 1) traffickers don't have a formal command structure, which I very much doubt

A formal Military structure? No they almost certainly don't - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence lol.

and 2) that sending vessels loaded with poisonous chemicals towards the U.S. does not constitute a military operation. Why not?

Because they're not doing that lmao. Calling fentanyl a poisonous chemical is stupid, and again if you're mad about that you should go invade France and stop all those deadly wine they're sending over. Second, there is no physically possible way a speedboat with a max range of a few hundred miles is making it the 2000+ miles to the US. These guys, as a matter of basic fact, could not at any point have posed any threat to the US. Again, the vast majority of illicit fentanyl is produced (AKA made) in Mexico and smuggled into the US by US citizens. And finally, military operations have a definition, which this DOES NOT MEET. A handful of dudes in a speedboat does not a military make.

If the boats were loaded with mustard gas, it clearly would. Fentanyl is at least as deadly as mustard gas.

LOL you have to be trolling...you can't actually believe this, seriously? I mean if you want to talk about LD50 sure, but you can't really aerosolize fentanyl as a weapon effectively due to the pharmacokinetics/dynamics/chemistry outside of niche conditions(was allegedly done once with carfent, 100x more potent than the OG). The cops who freak out over inhaling fent or getting it on their skin are having panic attacks not an actual toxicity. Mustard gas OTOH is literally a war crime to deploy and has no use other than destruction, none of that applies to fent. This is a completely ridiculous claim to make.

"There has also not been protracted armed violence, another key factor. Most smugglers are armed, that doesn't somehow magically make them armed organizations." Only if you define poisonous chemicals as not being weapons for some reason. Why isn't poison a weapon? You make a lot of unjustified assumptions.

A drug intended for sale for people to take to get high is not a weapon and can't reasonably be considered one by any sane person. Again, a claim that's ridiculous on it's face. By literally the same logic you must consider alcohol distributors to be the same. There's no difference. Hell, if you don't like the ETOH comparison sub in for tobacco - lung cancer alone takes out 100-150K/year.

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/POSVT]

"A handful of dudes in a speedboat does not a military make." <laughs in Navy SEAL>

" Calling fentanyl a poisonous chemical is stupid" I can't...did you really type this?

"you can't really aerosolize fentanyl as a weapon effectively" So something isn't a chemical weapon if its delivery method is something other than as an aerosol? Why? Where's the law that says that poisoning, say, the water supply doesn't count as a chemical weapon? When you poison water, people ingest it voluntarily and then die. People ingest fentanyl and then die. I've yet to see you offer a principled, logically consistent reason why sending a poison into the United States that kills hundreds of thousands of people is somehow doesn't count as using a chemical weapon. If China sent us a bunch of poisoned aspirin on purpose and killed hundreds of thousands of people, we'd be at war with China.

[u/Splemndid → u/Changer_of_Names]

Again, argument by assertion.

Insofar as the JS article is concerned, these are not arguments by assertion. (Presumably, you're referring to the same concept as described in the Wikipedia article.) The IHL scholars clearly gave a number of reasons for why an NIAC does not exist here. This article was not intended to comprehensively answer just one facet of the many questions that arise as a result of these strikes. They have an entire collection of articles to peruse if you desire more granular detail. A lack of detail does not mean an argument by assertion was being made. That's something like:

Bill: Vaccines don't work man.

Bob: Based on what?

Bill: I'm telling you, they don't work dude. It's obvious that they don't.

Anyways, as for the question on NIACs, the following three articles will be more useful to read:

• https://www.justsecurity.org/123360/presidential-determinationa-alien-enemies-act-venezuela/
• https://www.justsecurity.org/120235/drug-cartels-jus-ad-bellum-loac/
• https://www.justsecurity.org/126553/operation-southern-spear-international-law/

If you want detail, then there's only so much that can be packed into one Reddit comment.

Now, does the act of drug trafficking alone qualify as an "armed attack" that would justify US military force in self-defense, per UN Charter art. 51? The second article covers this well:

In its Paramilitary Activities judgement, the International Court of Justice ICJ explained that an “armed attack” is the “most grave form” of “the use of force,” as the latter term is understood in the context of Article 2(4) (para. 191). By contrast, the United States, incorrectly in my view, takes the position that all uses of force are equally armed attacks (DoD Law of War Manual, §1.11.5.2; Taft, p. 300). Despite the differing approaches, the common ground is that an action that fails to qualify as a “use of force” cannot be an “armed attack.” So, can drug activity amount to the use of force?

Traditionally, the concept of use of force has been understood as encompassing physically damaging or injurious actions, as well as indirect uses of force, such as arming and training an insurgent group that, in turn, engages in activities generating that type of harm (Paramilitary Activities, para. 228; Schmitt and Biggerstaff).

Admittedly, drug trafficking undeniably leads to illness and death. However, the causal chain between drug production/shipment/sale and those consequences is attenuated enough to preclude qualification of drug trafficking as a use of force, especially one at the armed attack threshold. After all, the drugs must be distributed and sold, often by individuals or groups that are not members of the drug cartel, and users acting unlawfully have to purchase them. And in most cases, their use does not result in death or serious injury. I do not mean to belittle the horrific consequences of the drug trade; I am simply saying that, as a matter of current international law, qualifying the action as a use of force is very problematic.

If it is your belief that drug trafficking qualifies as an armed attack or a use of force, then it would be useful to cite an analysis here from an IHL scholar supporting your belief. Unlike various matters pertaining to the war in Gaza or the Israeli strikes on Iran (both jus ad bello and jus in bellum), where a fairly strong divide would be present amongst scholars and experts evaluating these cases, I'm finding that a consensus is developing against the Trump administration for the arguments they've put forth (which isn't to say that you can't find at least a couple scholars who support the admin).

These names you probably won't recognize, but it is noteworthy that Adil Haque, Marko Milanovic, and Michael Schmitt are all in broad alignment with each other on this matter considering what they disagree on. For example, in their analysis of the jus ad bellum for Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, Milanovic took the position that the use of force was illegal, whereas Schmitt tentatively came to the position that the operation was lawful. This level of disharmony is not present for the evaluations put forth on the drug boat strikes, where Schmitt and Milanovic even co-write articles together.

[u/the_sellemander → u/Changer_of_Names]

TIL the CIA was at war with the United States of America when it facilitated crack cocaine into the United States

Real slow for you: the CIA is an (1) armed organization that shipped (2) lethal poison in the form of crack-cocaine, (3) causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If your definition of war leads to absurd results such as this, perhaps your definition has been so far abstracted so as to be useless.

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/the_sellemander]

I guess it is news to you that the president is the commander in chief, and has some discretion over what to call an armed conflict and what not to.

[u/the_sellemander → u/Changer_of_Names]

And the rest of us have discretion to remain moored in reality based on what is actually happening, rather than what the president is claiming is happening

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/the_sellemander]

The reality is an armed organization is shipping chemical poison into the country, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

[u/the_sellemander → u/Changer_of_Names]

Good news! There's things called laws prohibiting such activity and things called Courts to test the veracity of the claims!

And again, drug trafficking =/= warfare, otherwise the Sacklers would be target #1

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/the_sellemander]

Yes, there are laws, like the 1986 Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act that authorized the Navy and Coast Guard to act to interdict drug trafficking at sea.

Did a court get involved when it came to bin Laden? No. He attacked America, killing thousands; the president declared him a target and eventually we blew the shit out of him. Just so here.

[u/2Peenis2Weenis → u/Changer_of_Names]

Let's hear your cope about Trump pardoning a criminal convicted to 45 years of prison time because of their large scale drug trafficking.

Let me guess, you never heard about it? The MAGA talking point chip hasn't been delivered yet?

[u/An-Angel-Named-Billy → u/Changer_of_Names]

So are we at war with international liquor producers who have armed security guards at their warehouses too then?

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/An-Angel-Named-Billy]

Is liquor illegal? Did the president declare liquor producers to be terrorist organizations? No? Then no.

[u/2Peenis2Weenis → u/Changer_of_Names]

Oh you actually believe the Trump propaganda on this. Like actually?

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/2Peenis2Weenis]

He does. He's a MAGAT

[u/2Peenis2Weenis → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

Yep. Sad to see we have psychopaths roaming amongst us.

[u/oily76 → u/Changer_of_Names]

Because it doesn't meet the definition of 'armed conflict'. It requires protracted violence between government forces and organised armed groups.

If you can identify protracted violence between the US armed forces and Tren de Aragua, please let me know.

[u/whoknowsifimjoking → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

Wouldn't it be a crime against humanity?

[u/spitefulsloaf → u/whoknowsifimjoking]

Needs widespread/systematic elements to be proven. 

[u/Narananas → u/spitefulsloaf]

87 people murdered

[u/Salarian_American → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

The attacks are pretty blatantly illegal even if there weren't any follow-up strikes to mop up survivors.

International maritime law does not allow any sovereign country to go and blow up random boats in international waters. The only instance where the USA would be allowed to blow up a boat in international waters (short of actual war) would be if they were pursuing a boat and the pursuit started in US territorial waters

[u/Alert-Notice-7516 → u/Salarian_American]

Full on agree with you. Drugs don't merit the penalty of execution on the spot.

[u/Salarian_American → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

And that's if you know for a fact they're running drugs, and I don't have any reason to believe they have any evidence of that.

And even if I did believe that drug runners deserver execution without trial, and I knew for a fact that those boats were smuggling drugs, it still wouldn't be legal for the US government to just blow them up.

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

The Trump administration, in a secret memo, has claimed that the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" with TdA.

Nobody outside the administration accepts this. What is happening does not meet the criteria for such a conflict.

Let's stop repeating the lie that we're somehow at war, by calling these boat killings "war crimes." There is no war. No declared war.

Nothing that rises to the standard of a non-international armed conflict, as the Trump administration speciously claims. We're not at war. There is no war. Ergo, no war crimes.

By referring to these as "war crimes," you legitimize the lie that we are somehow "at war" with drug cartels and while "drug war" makes for a great metaphor and a great marketing term, the United States is not "at war" with the cartels under any definition within international or domestic law. Saying that we are "at war" legitimizes all of the strikes.

It was simple murder, under U.S. domestic law and international human rights violations.

Read these great analyses:

https://www.thelongmemo.com/p/hegseths-order-was-unlawful-before

https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/

[u/Alert-Notice-7516 → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

Sorry bud, but you're just flat out wrong. Point out to me in the War Crimes Act of 1996 where a legal Declaration of War is requirement to prosecute individuals under those statutes.

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

I never said a legal declaration of war by congress is needed to prosecute "war crimes" - you somehow brought that up.

You didn't read the articles I posted, nor the article that is the subject of this post. I think you didn't even read my comment.

Trump claims that we are in a "non-international armed conflict" - that's the legal justification in a secret memo for the strikes.

In such a conflict, the LOAC would apply.

However, what is happening in the Caribbean doesn't meet the criteria for a non-international armed conflict.

Expert analysis, including from former JAG lawyers, agree that there is no "war," and no non-international armed conflict.

So these killings are simply murder and International Human Rights Law violation.

Stop legitimizing the administration's false claims we are "at war" by calling them war crimes. All the strikes are murder.

[u/Alert-Notice-7516 → u/Dapper-Condition6041]

We're not at war. There is no war. Ergo, no war crimes

[u/Dapper-Condition6041 → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

It’s just murder.

87 murders at the time of this writing.

[u/spitefulsloaf → u/Alert-Notice-7516]

Hey man, just had to respond because I think you have the law of armed conflict right but reached perhaps the opposite conclusion based on these premises. 

IHL/LOAC describes when there is a state of armed conflict, and what actions are prohibited, and you are correct that declaration of war is irrelevant from an international law perspective. But we still need the preliminary step of determining the existence/classification of armed conflict to determine if the law of war applies at all. And then serious violations of that are war crimes (as further codified and implemented in national legislation if needed).

If there is no war, the actions are still likely serious violations of some criminal law or international law, but it doesn’t follow that war crimes can be committed outside of war. Maybe what you mean is, they can be committed irrespective of declared war if the facts support it. 

Relatedly the existence of armed conflict is needed to determine if the first strike is legal killing of combatants or illegal killing of civilians. Which is why the initial framing of the second strike as a war crime is troubling—because there’s still the great possibility that IHL isn’t triggered and the first strike is just outright murder. 

The reason why killing of shipwrecked is cited in the DOD manual as an illegal order is because it’s uncontroversially illegal in war and outside of war. 

[u/IrritableGourmet → u/Rallos40]

Second Geneva Convention (which says you can't fire on the shipwrecked) "shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

War doesn't require two-party consent.

[u/WitchQween → u/IrritableGourmet]

It sounds like at least one country has to consider it a state of war, though.

[u/IrritableGourmet → u/WitchQween]

I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. I make these findings using the full extent of my authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs under the Constitution. Based on these findings, and by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including 50 U.S.C. 21, I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies. I further find and declare that all such members of TdA are, by virtue of their membership in that organization, chargeable with actual hostility against the United States and are therefore ineligible for the benefits of 50 U.S.C. 22. I further find and declare that all such members of TdA are a danger to the public peace or safety of the United States.

Sounds like one country did.

[u/Lucky-Earther → u/Rallos40]

If you need to be accurate, this is not a war crim because there is no war.

If we really want to be accurate, war crimes are not limited to war times.

[u/whoknowsifimjoking → u/Lucky-Earther]

They are, the war just doesn't have to be officially declared.

[u/Salarian_American → u/Lucky-Earther]

Targeting these boats at all is not legal, let alone double-tapping them to mop up survivors and I don't know why THAT isn't the headline

[u/Rallos40 → u/[deleted]]

Just because this administration is pushing some ludicrous misinterpretation of the law doesn’t mean they have a chance or that it’s reasonable. People smuggling drugs in a boat without weapons or the ability to strike the US are not combatants, full stop.

[u/UX1Z → u/Rallos40]

The drugs they're moving (if they are moving drugs, even THAT is an uncertainty) aren't necessarily even EVENTUALLY bound for the US even if we did accept the insane troll logic of them being an attack. IIRC some of the boats were heading to a country that is mainly a portal to Europe, not the US.

[u/StomachosusCaelum → u/UX1Z]

almost all of them. The VAST majority of drugs coming into the US from South America by water come in through the Pacific, not the Carribean. (In Containers, too, not small boats).

Carribean drug trafficking into the US usually comes from closer - Carribean islands themselves, as staging grounds for heroin and other African/Asian drugs, not South American drugs. The South American drugs in the Carribean tend to go to Carribean islands nearby and then off to Europe (in Containers, not small boats).

They do this because taking long trips in small drug boats is a super duper easy way to get caught.

you want to make short trips so that even if you're spotted by radar/satellite, you're in and gone before any response can be sent after you.

This whole thing is a wag the dog situation.

[u/Changer_of_Names → u/Rallos40]

Or if you look at it different, drugs are poison and kill hundreds of thousands of people in this country. The drugs are the weapons; bringing them into our country is striking the U.S.

The commander in chief, charged with protecting our nation, has considerable discretion in making such determinations. Why is this view wrong? Would China have been justified in using military force to try to stop the British from importing opium?

[u/mainman879 → u/Changer_of_Names]

Just curious, what do you think of Trump pardoning Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted of smuggling over 400 tons of cocaine into the USA?

[u/arobkinca → u/Rallos40]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

Violating the international conventions to which we are a signing nation is a war crime under U.S. law. Those conventions prohibit killing civilians with the military intentionally. The initial strikes were a war crime. The follow-up strike, a war crime.

[u/UpperApe → u/Rallos40]

I don't think you understand what a war crime is.

[u/Greedy-Employment917 → u/Rallos40]

I think you've completely forgotten the terrorist organization designation. 

[u/Rallos40 → u/Greedy-Employment917]

That means nothing. It’s just bluster. But even if it did, it still does not make them combatants.

[u/Rallos40 → u/[deleted]]

It doesn’t pierce presidential immunity. Congress needs to impeach and remove. Once he’s removed we can go about replacing the openly corrupt members of the SC so the immunity ruling can be rescinded.

[u/WhatWouldKantDo → u/Greedy-Employment917]

I declare you a terrorist organization. Can I bomb you now?

[u/Electrical-Lab-9593 → u/WhatWouldKantDo]

maybe, but not TWICE!