TheDemonRazgriz
No bio...
User ID: 3577
TheDemonRazgriz
16d ago
Under modern customs, irregular combatants are not considered total outlaws and are still expected to be treated properly as POWs. I'm not sure if this is explicitly codified in international law or in US military policy, but it is certainly the general case. For example, even when fighting Al Qaeda or the Taliban, coalition forces were not allowed to summarily execute surrendering enemies (which is essentially what the Navy is being accused of in this case). The clearest example of this is the case from a few years back where an Australian special operations unit was found to have executed a group of Taliban prisoners because they could not fit them into their helicopter. The fact that the Taliban troops were neither regular military nor civilians did not protect the Australian soldiers from prosecution.
This doesn't even get into the question of whether the drug runners should really be classed as "combatants" in the first place as opposed to merely "criminals". If they are properly classified as criminals then these strikes are summary executions (or arguably just murder), not legitimate combat, and would be illegal anyway... but that's not really what's at issue here.
TheDemonRazgriz
16d ago
Appreciate the thoughtful response -- I don't think we actually disagree very much here.
I'm pretty sure that if the ship still has significant ability to fight despite it's disability, a belligerent would be permitted, under the rules of war, to continue attacking the ship until it no longer poses a threat. Even if the continued attacks will inevitably result in crew deaths.
Agreed. I was using "disabled" to mean "firmly out of action", i.e. removed from combat and neutralized as a threat. So:
If this is your claim, that it's a war crime to specifically attack the survivors of a ship that is disabled and sinking, then this is a more defensible position.
The ship literally sinking is not necessarily part of my claim, it could be dead in the water, but I agree that if the enemy ship is still moving or shooting it is plainly a legitimate target. I would phrase my claim as "it is a war crime to intentionally attack the surviving crew of a ship which has been neutralized or sunk."
Can you please provide a specific cite to the provision of international law which you believe applies here?
I am not a lawyer and at best an armchair historian, but yes, I was able to find this portion of the Geneva Conventions, which should at least be illustrative: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/article-12/commentary/2017. This comes from the 1949 version of the Conventions; I believe that there is some similar provision in older versions or in some other older treaty, I think from the Hague in 1899, but I couldn't immediately find a source for that. It is considered applicable today, in any case. I also believe there are similar provisions in some other treaties (e.g. UNCLOS) but again I think the Geneva Conventions are illustrative enough on their own (also, if memory serves, the USA is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions but not of UNCLOS anyway). I am fairly confident that what is formalized in the Geneva Conventions was considered the proper way of doing things by custom for a long time, but I admittedly don't have a source at hand for that, it's just from my vaguely recollected history knowledge. Regardless, the historical aspect is only tangential to what is being discussed here.
Anyway. The relevant portion is the discussion of "wounded, sick, and shipwrecked" combatants, under Article 12. The set of [wounded, sick, and shipwrecked] is used throughout the convention as a coherent category, and in short the point of the convention is that [wounded, sick, and shipwrecked] enemy personnel should be rescued as POWs and given medical attention, to the best of the ability of the prisoner-taking side, and generally treated as required by all other protections for POWs. This is all pretty clear and straightforward, so what is at issue here is who counts as "shipwrecked". This is defined as follows:
“shipwrecked” means persons, … who are in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of misfortune affecting them or the vessel or aircraft carrying them and who refrain from any act of hostility
Further:
A person does not need to be in an acutely life- or health-threatening situation to be ‘shipwrecked’ for the purposes of Article 12. Persons who find themselves involuntarily in the water or on board a burning ship are covered.
And:
Persons on a fully disabled ship, or a ship that has run aground, whose situation is dangerous but not necessarily imminently life-threatening, are also covered, as long as they also refrain from any act of hostility
So, this quite directly supports my claim. If a US Navy officer ordered a follow-up strike on a neutralized ship in order to kill its crew, that would indeed be a war crime. Crucially, for the act to be criminal, the victorious party must knowingly fire on a disabled ship, and that's what's really at issue in the present case. The Geneva Convention discusses repeatedly that it is important for the defeated crew to be "refraining from hostilities", which generally seems to be interpreted as not firing (not remotely at issue here) and not maneuvering or otherwise attempting to complete a mission. This is what I was trying to get at in my first post. If the Navy simply fired two missiles at the boat, one after the other, that clearly would not be a war crime. If the Navy fired on the boat, believed it to still be operational, then fired again to sink it, this would not be a war crime. If the Navy fired on the boat, confirmed through surveillance that it was disabled but had survivors, then fired again to finish off the crew, this would be a war crime.
You dismiss the second case as "pretty unlikely", but that is exactly what the Navy/DoD is being accused of doing, which is why it is being treated as a Big Deal. In previous strikes on drug boats the Navy has released very clear targeting footage from drones and other aircraft showing the weapon impacts and aftermath, so it's unrealistic to think that they outright could not see the boat. In the absence of any released targeting footage it is impossible for the public to determine conclusively whether a war crime was committed. All we know for a fact is that two missiles were fired at the boat. If targeting footage shows two swift impacts that would plainly disprove a war crime. If targeting footage shows an impact, then a clear view of a burning boat with crew either on the deck or in the water, then another impact, that would prove a war crime, or at least would be very strong evidence. They would have to somehow prove that the second shot was fired without knowing that the boat was disabled and/or without knowing there were surviving crew members.
They probably wouldn't bother to waste ammo, but if they did shoot the pirates in the water, absolutely nobody would care.
That’s true, but I don’t think it would’ve been considered “proper” conduct. They might sink a pirate ship and leave without making a rescue attempt but I don’t think they’d finish off survivors. And it would be more a case of “nobody is going to miss them anyway” rather than active policy. Certainly many pirates were captured from sunk/defeated ships, then tried and jailed/whipped/executed according to the law. Admittedly I got a bit carried away with the historical analogies, I have some knowledge but I’m far from an expert and it’s not a perfect parallel to the issue at hand anyway.
Part of the (legal) problem is that the anti-drug operation is being justified in no small part by declaring the smugglers to be irregular combatants (narco-terrorists) affiliated with the Venezuelan government. If they are merely ordinary drug smugglers then the Navy should not be sinking their boats at all, per US law, and doing so would be criminal. But if they are combatants then the strike would be a war crime. There’s no version of modern law where killing the survivors after destroying the boat is legal/acceptable conduct.
Edit: @KMC as well
TheDemonRazgriz
17d ago
You are very right, thanks for adding that. It’s a similar path of Chinese pharmaceuticals -> drug gangs with labs -> smuggled across the land border. The “essentially all through Mexico” theory is a few years out of date; I don’t know how much of that is actual change on the ground and how much is just increased awareness of northern-border drug running. I do think the majority is still assumed to be coming from Mexico but the Canadian side is very much not negligible.
TheDemonRazgriz
17d ago
(It isn't clear to me if it is being cooked in Mexico or if it is being flown into Mexico with Mexican customs paid off).
As far as I know, the consensus view is that the overwhelming majority of fentanyl on US streets takes the following route:
- Precursor/component chemicals are produced in China by pharmaceutical companies.
- These components are shipped from China to Mexico. Some of this is smuggled in (e.g. triad-to-cartel B2B relationships), some is legally shipped and acquired by cartels later. The Chinese government may or may not be facilitating this process.
- The actual fentanyl is produced by the Mexican cartels, in drug labs throughout Mexico.
- Fentanyl is smuggled into the US over the land border. The potency of fentanyl means tiny volumes comprise many doses so this is not very hard to get away with on a useful scale, much easier than basically any other drug.
- Once in the US, the fentanyl is distributed around the country through traditional criminal channels until it eventually reaches the street-level dealers.
Killing the crew of a disabled ship in the water absolutely is a war crime, and a pretty serious one at that. You could hang for doing something like this in the past (I’m not sure if there are examples of this actually happening, just speaking to the attitude historically taken toward the issue). I believe this was codified at The Hague at the turn of the 20th century but it was generally accepted convention for a long, long time before that as well.
Simply firing two missiles at the boat would not be a war crime (well, there’s an argument to be made that these operations in general constitute extrajudicial executions more than warfare, I personally have mixed thoughts about it, but obviously for this discussion we’re assuming the combat itself is legitimate). The crime is from firing once, confirming the boat is disabled and sinking, noticing survivors in the water, then firing again to finish them off. This is unambiguously a war crime today and has always been considered egregious misconduct. Even if you were fighting against pirates, back in the day, you wouldn’t order your marines to shoot the survivors of a sinking ship out of the water. That would be dishonorable. You would be expected to rescue them and take them prisoner, and perhaps then execute them in an orderly manner if deemed appropriate.
The concept is the same as how you don’t shoot at a pilot who has ejected from a shot-down plane, and is therefore no longer part of the battle. If you kill him in the process of shooting him down, c’est la vie, but if he bails out and you circle back to blow him away on his parachute, that’s beyond the pale.
TheDemonRazgriz
18d ago
As an aside, this is the biggest source of my AI skepticism. AI will not be able to be useful at scale unless it is truly reliable, which the current state of the art emphatically is not. The problem is not merely that it can fail to complete a task, but that it confidently pretends to have succeeded. In fact the models do not seem to be capable of differentiating on their own between success and pretend-success. This puts a hard limit on what kind of tasks they can perform and at what scale. People like to talk about working with an LLM assistant as like having a fast-working junior employee always at your beck and call (you can offload your tasks but you’ll need to check its work), but for most applications it seems more like having a dodgy outsourcing firm on-call. Not only do you have to check its work, its errors are bizarre and can be deeply hidden, and it will always project total confidence whether the results are perfect or nonexistent.
The lack of progress on this front by any of the major LLM companies makes me think it’s going to take a fairly significant breakthrough to fix, not merely “moar compute,” which makes the aggressive push for AI-everything seem… premature, shall we say. Certainly it does not seem to me that AGI is just around the corner.
TheDemonRazgriz
28d ago
I seriously doubt the average woman who signs up for military service anywhere in the world normally does so at the age of 18
What? Why? At least in the US the large majority of people who enlist do so directly out of high school, or shortly after, so age 18 or 19. What intuition is leading you away from those ages?
Everything I’ve seen out of Britain in the last few years suggests that yes, this is exactly what a Good Subject is supposed to do.
More options
Context Copy link