Posted on 12/01/2025 12:09:11 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[snip]
On today's CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish approvingly cited Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, apropos the reported second strike on a narco boat that was allegedly intended to kill two survivors of the first strike. Wrote McCarthy, a former Assistant United States Attorney:
"If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law."
Here's a suggestion: what if Audie were to occasionally cite National Review when, as it normally does, it makes the case in opposition to the liberal talking point o' the day?
Get the rest of the story and view the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Start calling Venezuela “the whitest country in South America”
and the left, neocons and NR will jump on board with both feet.
Still waiting for the broken Statue’s Name and Number.
“Statute”
I can guess one of them. Rand Paul loves his narcoterrorists.
Yep and yep.
It was intended to sink the boat. Job done.
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.
The same ones that attack President Trump on almost everything else.
No, if we want them gone, they will be gone.
Rand Paul and Thomas Massie love drugs period.
Rand Paul and Thomas Massie love drugs period.
Precisely.
I’m disappointed in Trump II, but CNN could cite NR on pretty much anything opposing him.
We are at war with the left. Winning is all that matters. It’s not rocket science.
“We are at war with the left. Winning is all that matters. It’s not rocket science.”
____________________________________________________________
How will you know when you’ve won?
“Democrats sure love those drug cartels. It’s almost like the cartels help fund the DNC.”
____________________________________________________________
Trump just pardoned a real drug kingpin a couple days ago. You know, the guy who sets up all these boats in the first place....
Now they love Venezuelan narco-terrorists. At least they're consistent: They love Venezuelan hardcore criminals more than US Citizens.
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.
I highly doubt Hegseth gave any such order. I am not well versed enough in laws which would apply in taking out suspected narco-terrorists to opine for sure it would be subject to rules of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.