Killing survivors: some historical points.

[malthaussen]

In WW2, it was pretty much SOP to kill Japanese airmen and sailors who were left as survivors when their plane was shot down or their ship sunk. The argument was based on a number of documented cases of Japanese POW survivors attacking and often killing their rescuers. Everyone knew it was a war crime, and nobody cared. There are any number of documented or attested instances of American troops killing POWs for one reason or another, and getting away with it.

Several points immediately occur, but the most significant to my mind and the one that is becoming lost in all the noise is this: we are not at war. Those people in the water were foreign nationals and civilians. We murdered them. The legalists may try to obfuscate this as they wish, but they cannot erase the fact. They can only make the fact irrelevant, as in the case of the Japanese survivors or other war crimes committed by US forces over the years.

Personally, I have zero tolerance for anyone, pundit or politician or random Internet Yahoo, who tries to sell the point that these murders were anything other than state-sponsored piracy on the high seas. And insofar as I am a citizen of the State which has committed this crime, I am furious with every official in the chain of command who passed on this indefensible order. Less so with the figurative 19-year old seaman with his figurative finger on the figurative trigger: he was between a rock and a hard place, and his superiors are supposed to protect him from this shit.. You may blame the top of the chain-of-command as much as you like, and may try to paint Admiral Bradley as an innocent scapegoat as much as you like, but responsibility for this act is not compartmentalized: every single link in the chain failed, and betrayed their oaths to the Constitution, to say nothing of betraying common human morality.

-- Mal

[Walleye]

1. The Supreme Court gave Trump a license to kill.

We do know, after having tried it so many times, that attacking the supply does not stop drug addiction. People will find their dope. How can they be terrorists when the only people they are terrorizing are people who take illegal drugs?

[malthaussen]

2. That's irrelevant too.

The USSC, in its infinite wisdom, granted the President of the United States immunity for official acts done in pursuit of his Constitutional duty. Murder is not such an act.

There is no evidence at all that the murdered civilians were transporting restricted narcotics to the United States, and inexplicably, no attempt was made to even gather evidence from the wreckage of such a cargo onboard. But even if the effort had been made and such evidence discovered, this act was committed in international waters, and the United States does not have jurisdiction over them. This is legal obfuscation at its highest. The alleged circumstances do not alter the facts of the case.

-- Mal

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I expect the current Supreme Court would rule this is "in pursuit of his Constitutional duty"

If it was not "in pursuit", yes, it would be murder. But it will be a court's ruling on whether the killings are in pursuit, and therefore whether they are murder, or something Trump cannot be prosecuted for.

A non-corrupt court would rule that this is not a "war", that the sailors were not an imminent threat, and that if there was a suspicion they were smuggling drugs, they should have been detained and prosecuted according to the law.

But the USSC has 6 corrupt members.

[malthaussen]

9. Take it to the bank.

What I hope (faintly), is that the issue will not become clouded in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, so that if we ever emerge from our current state, we can once again understand the difference between right and wrong.

-- Mal

[Walleye]

14. All true. Unfortunately.

[malaise]

4. THIS

Several points immediately occur, but the most significant to my mind and the one that is becoming lost in all the noise is this: we are not at war. Those people in the water were foreign nationals and civilians. We murdered them. The legalists may try to obfuscate this as they wish, but they cannot erase the fact. They can only make the fact irrelevant, as in the case of the Japanese survivors or other war crimes committed by US forces over the years.

[ToxMarz]

6. Yes but as he also said

'Everyone knew it was a war crime, and nobody cared.'

In this case it seems to be being made a case that (some/enough) people do care, and are shining a light on this war crime rather than looking the other way.

[malthaussen]

11. IT IS NOT A WAR CRIME!!!!

Excuse me for shouting. But it's very important that we do not allow this false "war" narrative to be normalized. Killing those people is not wrong because it violates the rules of war, it's wrong because it's wrong. Full stop.

-- Mal

[malaise]

12. Correct

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2025, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

It is murder on the high seas - plain and simple.

[yardwork]

16. It's terrorism.

If some other nation started bombing American fisherman off the shore of Florida we would call it terrorism or an act of war.

I believe that Trump is trying to start a war with Venezuela.

[stollen]

17. For oil

It's sad to see what the US has evolved into. Now Germany is amping up its defense spending since the US is becoming a threat.

[Wounded Bear]

5. There are also numerous documented cases of Japanese survivors in the water refusing aid or rescue...

The silliness of declaring a "War on Drugs" comes to mind, a "war" that we have been losing for 50-60 years or so.

[malthaussen]

10. Yes, and not just military, but civilians as well...

... Okinawa families (women, children, and old men included) wading into the surf to be drowned rather than captured by US forces come immediately to mind.

-- Mal

[Wounded Bear]

21. Part of that was propaganda...

Many of the Japanese that were captured were surprised at the relatively humane treatment they received.

While I think that the post above over emphasized the number of times Americans strafed and shot prisoners/survivors, WWII in the Pacific was a highly racist war.

[Fil1957]

7. It's murder, pure and simple. Everyone killed on those boats were murdered whether or not they were carrying drugs, and

I'll bet most of them weren't.

They were killed to desensitize and normalize the idea of our government randomly killing anyone they want at any time without judicial review.

Their long range goal is to be able do this to anyone in the United States regardless of citizenship, who protests, disagrees with them, or whom they just don't like.

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out..."

[GiqueCee]

8. Well said.

[Irish_Dem]

13. The US is not at war, and these are civilians, not military combatants.

So yes, comparison to WWII is not valid.

[Bayard]

15. Agreed

If I remember right, a president gets a few days leeway to undertake military action, but then has to bow to Congress to officially declare war. That deadline has long since passed.

There is no war, unless you consider a battle for oil as one.

[malaise]

18. Put simply

There was no effin armed conflict PERIOD

[malthaussen]

19. As much a "conflict" as shooting fish in a barrel...

"But your Honor, the fish were wriggling!"

-- Mal

[Solly Mack]

20. ...

You may blame the top of the chain-of-command as much as you like, and may try to paint Admiral Bradley as an innocent scapegoat as much as you like, but responsibility for this act is not compartmentalized: every single link in the chain failed, and betrayed their oaths to the Constitution, to say nothing of betraying common human morality.

Yes.