The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49469198)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49469213)

You: “but SecWar Pete was authorized by a post that POTUS made while gakked out on addy at 2:30 one morning.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49469479)

https://www.execfunctions.org/p/a-dishonorable-strike?r=4xo6yq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49469525)

“If attacked from the air, you can kill them even after the initial strike.” — No. This is unlawful

Even in a full, declared armed conflict:

The moment individuals are:

out of the fight,

incapacitated,

shipwrecked,

drowning,

wounded,

thrown into the sea,

or otherwise unable to resist,

…they become hors de combat, and it is absolutely prohibited to kill them.

This is not optional.

This is Article 41 of Additional Protocol I (customary even for states not party) and long-standing customary law.

Shipwrecked persons get special protection under Article 12 of Geneva Convention II. They are to be rescued and protected, not attacked.

✔ The doctrine that "combatants cannot surrender to aircraft" exists — but it is narrow.

❌ It does not justify killing incapacitated survivors.

❌ It does not apply to people in the water.

❌ It does not erase war-crime liability for airstrikes.

If the described second strike occurred, it would violate IHL in almost any legal framing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49470320)

if they can’t reasonably be taken into custody then they are not hors de combat

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49471028)

It mixes two different concepts and applies the rule for surrender to the completely separate rule for being hors de combat. In LOAC, these are not interchangeable.

Let me break it down in a way that’s airtight.

✅ 1. “Cannot be taken into custody” is relevant ONLY to surrender, NOT to hors de combat

Surrender rule (voluntary submission):

A person is considered to have surrendered only if:

They clearly express an intention to surrender, and

The opposing forces accept that surrender.

Aircraft often cannot accept surrender — so the law lets aircraft continue engaging.

This doctrine applies ONLY to whether surrender has successfully been communicated.

✅ 2. Hors de combat is a TOTALLY different rule

A person becomes hors de combat if ANY of the following are true (under Additional Protocol I, Art. 41 and customary IHL):

They are unconscious or incapacitated by wounds

They have clearly been rendered defenseless

They are shipwrecked (Geneva Convention II, Art. 12)

They are detained or otherwise unable to fight

NONE of these depend on whether the attacker can take them into custody.

The test is about:

their physical condition,

their capacity to fight,

and whether they are defenseless.

Not about whether a helicopter or aircraft is capable of arresting them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49471141)

No one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49471043)

It all seems a little silly...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803903&forum_id=2.#49471132)