The idea of rules to war might seems strange but I think the idea is that there IS such a thing as a legitimate military objective. For example if the boat IS a legitimate military threat to your nation, you’ve neutralized that threat by sinking the boat.
“Exterminate people you don’t like” is NOT a legitimate military objective, so the second strike is NOT legitimate as the legitimate military objective has already been achieved.
But yes, I think many would agree that the initial strikes were ALSO illegal, it’s just that the administration is hiding behind a declaration that these boats are a legitimate military threat so they create a grey area where they are unlikely to ever be held accountable.
The second strike is blatantly illegal and there’s really no sane defense for that, by defending the second strike they’re essentially admitting to being psychopaths who aren’t behaving like legitimate military leadership.
The idea of rules to war might seems strange but I think the idea is that there IS such a thing as a legitimate military objective. For example if the boat IS a legitimate military threat to your nation, you’ve neutralized that threat by sinking the boat.
“Exterminate people you don’t like” is NOT a legitimate military objective, so the second strike is NOT legitimate as the legitimate military objective has already been achieved.
But yes, I think many would agree that the initial strikes were ALSO illegal, it’s just that the administration is hiding behind a declaration that these boats are a legitimate military threat so they create a grey area where they are unlikely to ever be held accountable.
The second strike is blatantly illegal and there’s really no sane defense for that, by defending the second strike they’re essentially admitting to being psychopaths who aren’t behaving like legitimate military leadership.