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]

Allegations of Unlawful Military Action - The report suggests a potential unlawful second strike on survivors, conflicting with official statements and raising questions about adherence to the law of war [8][10] - The White House's explanation appears inconsistent with initial reports and Pete Heg's statements, potentially implicating Admiral Bradley [3][11] - The legality of the initial strike is questioned, as designating an organization as a terrorist group does not automatically justify lethal targeting under international law [18][19] - Concerns are raised about military personnel potentially receiving unlawful orders, referencing the Department of Defense Law of War manual's example of firing on shipwrecked individuals [23][24] Discrepancies in Official Narrative - The claim of 11 people on the boat is inconsistent with typical drug smuggling operations, which prioritize cargo space and security with fewer individuals [13][14] - The assertion that the boat carried fentanyl, a drug primarily sourced outside South America, contradicts known facts about fentanyl trafficking [15][16] - The administration's narrative deviates from facts, potentially indicating an unlawful operation [17] Calls for Investigation and Transparency - The report advocates for a United States Congress inquiry involving various parties, including the Secretary of Defense, SEAL team leader, and Southcom commander [6] - The military is urged to provide legal justification and evidence for the operation to ensure troops are confident in the lawfulness of their missions [21][22]

Legal & Ethical Concerns - Seizing ships and kidnapping humanitarians violates international law [1] - Western media normalizes Israel's crimes by repeating Israeli propaganda [1] Media Bias - Headlines fail to mention the violation of international law [1]

Legal Perspective - Hugo Grotius 被誉为“国际法之父” [1] - 17 世纪的荷兰律师 Hugo Grotius 制定了详细的、普遍适用的规则，以确定战争何时是正义和合法的 [1] - 行业需要重新审视 Hugo Grotius 的工作 [1]