There are actually *FReepers* siding with these CNN and Nat’l Spew leftists, on this.
There was a day when FR was a great site for legal analysis instead of just commentary. While I enjoy the commentary, I miss the legal analysis. I’d really like to see someone weigh in legally to analyze what McCarthy said.
Legal analysis here now is generally trashed unless it reaches the conclusions that people want it to reach. Objective analysis that reaches an unfavorable conclusion earns all sorts of attacks and invectives.
Plus, actual analysis would require that people read the articles on which they are commenting. And that in itself is an increasingly rare thing.
McCarthy is a known never Trumper and NatRev is a known hangout for Republican never Trumpers. And there are plenty of them.
Anybody who would cite them as an objective source of information is full of sht, including the never Trumpers here at FR, who have now revealed themselves by passing on the allegation from WaPo as fact, even whole Trump and Hegseth flatly deny the same, which is nothing more than accusation making its rounds in the liberal media masquerading as fact.
The arguable legal requirements for rescuing (or not killing) pirates (and thus narco terrorists) after their ships are blown up are found in 46 U.S.C. § 2304 and the SOLAS treaty. Ships of war are explicitly exempted from both the statute and the treaty. Period.
And under customary, ancient maritime law going back centuries, pirates are considered the common enemies of mankind to whom no duty is owed. They can legally be killed at will.
Did McCarthy bother to do five seconds of research before unleashing yet another NR Never Trumper screed?
Judge for yourself.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
We’re in a war with drugs and the narco-terrorists who supply them.
NR and McCarthy’s attitude seems to be, “If you kill your enemies, they win.” PM Justine Trudeau?
That’s nonsense and you don’t have to be a legal scholar to see it.
In a war you kill your enemies in order to win. You kill them until they stop.
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.
We are at war with the left. Winning is all that matters. It’s not rocket science.