RT Matt Duss (@mattduss)Backer of Sudan genocide has thoughts on international law. ...

RT Raphael Rashid (@koryodynasty)This appears to be the first time diplomatically cautious President Lee Jae Myung has directly criticised Israel, saying treatment of apparently lifeless Palestinian bodies thrown off a roof by IDF soldiers in September 2024 violated international law. ...

RT د (@trhxianl)The Strait of Hormuz is entirely within Iranian & Omani territorial waters. Yes, international law guarantees free passage through it. But if you want international law to apply in the Strait, let it apply when it comes to Iran first. Apply international law to fight aggressions against sovereign nations first. Otherwise all 40 countries & yourself should shut the fuck up. ...

President Trump has spoken about the need of others to come together to try and secure the Strait of Hormuz. Was this discussed with Naito and what's the latest. Well, first of all, I think we now need to de-escalate rather than escalate.So what we probably need is peace mediation. The actual original operation was not discussed with allies, but I'm sure that President Trump is now in conversation with the U.K., with France, Germany, the big players. I think President Trump said you need to face is a very b ...

RT Siddharth (@DearthOfSid)With Iran’s retaliatory strikes, Israelis have now discovered new terms like “international law” & “war crimes” and are even using them in sentences. ...

Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite constellation violates international law while blurring the line between commercial and military technologies, Iranian and Russian diplomats said at a United Nations meeting. https://t.co/cYeqTWuIN3 ...

There's mention of Greenland being invaded by the United States. There's the situation in Iran. Trump has snatched Maduro from Venezuela.There's talk of China taking back Taiwan. What the hell is going on. >> Well, what you're seeing is the West becoming weaker and embolding our enemies and the final collapse of a shared myth that we were living in a structured world where everything is done according to the rules.That is now gone. And Trump is acting in recognition of that reality, saying we are not going ...

Allegations and Orders - Allegation involves Hegath giving the order to kill two individuals, but uncertainty exists regarding who issued the order [2] - The situation is questioned as not fitting the "fog of war" definition, since it is argued that a state of war with Venezuela or drug dealers does not exist [2] Legal and Ethical Concerns - Killing individuals in the Caribbean without a state of war constitutes a violation of US and international law [3] - The situation is suspicious, potentially involving an admiral being scapegoated [4] Operational Details and Justification - Initial report describes an explosion with fire and smoke, making visibility impossible [1] - The action was justified under the premise of empowering commanders to undertake necessary actions in the interest of the American people [1]

Legal and Ethical Concerns - The White House is defending the strike, asserting it falls within the president's legal authority, but lawmakers from both parties are seeking more detailed legal justification and information [1] - Concerns arise that the strikes may be illegal, particularly the second strike, as the targets were not enemy combatants but criminals who should have been arrested [1] - A former Homeland Security Chief of Staff stated that in 2018, the White House was informed that blowing up boats with migrants or unarmed combatants is illegal under international law [1] - The administration claims the strike was conducted in self-defense to protect US interests, but questions remain about whether the law of armed conflict applies, as it may not be an armed conflict [4][6] - Legal experts suggest that if the law of armed conflict doesn't apply, targeting individuals on the boat could lead to murder charges under federal law [6] - Even if the administration claims a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels, shipwrecked individuals are entitled to special protection and should not be targeted [7] Investigation and Accountability - Congress is seeking more information, including videos and communications, to determine who gave the order for the strikes and under what legal authority [1] - The House Armed Services Committee expects Admiral Bradley to provide answers regarding the order and the legal basis for the operation [1] - Secretary Hegsth allegedly watched the video feed of the strikes and ordered that there be no survivors, raising questions about his responsibility [2] - Senator Mark Kelly suggests the Pentagon may be looking for a scapegoat and points out that Secretary Hegsth was present and watching the operation live [11][12] - There are concerns that the administration is engaged in a "blizzard of illegality," potentially exposing federal employees and US service members to illegal orders [16] Operational Changes and Protocols - Protocols seem to have changed during the boat strike campaign, as subsequent strikes resulted in survivors being rescued [8] - Congressional oversight is needed to determine what protocols existed for the first strike and what led to the change in approach [9][10]

Alleged War Crimes Investigation - The report centers on allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegsth ordered the military to "leave no survivors" on a strike against boats in the Caribbean, potentially violating international law [3][4] - Legal experts, including the former JAGs working group, assert that targeting survivors is a war crime, constituting murder, with no other legal options [5][6] - Republican Mike Turner, head of the House Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that if the allegations are true, the act would be illegal [6][7] - The Senate Armed Services Committee announced an investigation into the attacks on drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific [8] Administration's Response - Secretary Hegsth initially dismissed the Washington Post reporting as fabricated but defended the decision to strike the boats [9] - Donald Trump claimed ignorance of the alleged second strike and stated he "wouldn't have wanted that" [10][11] Legal and Military Perspectives - The report highlights concerns that the alleged actions deviate from established military protocols and legal standards [14][15] - A retired Navy captain indicated they would not have carried out an order to eliminate survivors [16] - A retired Rear Admiral suggested the situation indicates a failure in planning, as contingencies for survivors should have been considered [25][26] - The report suggests a politicization of the military process, potentially leading to ad hoc interventions in operations [29]