I think there is some good discussion over at “Legal Insurrection.”
My understanding is if the strike was to target survivors that could be considered a war crime. If however the strike was to sink the boat and as a result those two survivors died it would not be a war crime. AFAIK there is no duty to make sure all survivors are out of harm’s way when a military action continues beyond the initial action. It would be different if the survivors had been picked up and summarily executed.
My understanding is if the strike was to target survivors that could be considered a war crime. If however the strike was to sink the boat and as a result those two survivors died it would not be a war crime. AFAIK there is no duty to make sure all survivors are out of harm’s way when a military action continues beyond the initial action. It would be different if the survivors had been picked up and summarily executed.
Where I think the left is going is stating that Hegseth, after the initial strike and realizing there were two survivors, gave an order “to kill them all”, and a second strike was targeted at the survivors.