Yeah both is illegal. But they have an “excuse” for shooting the ahip by saying it’s smuggling drugs. None of that is confirmed or even close to any proof.
But as others have said shooting the sinking surviors is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a fucking warcrime.
But, really, it’s the order for no quarter that is the main course of illegality. Simply put, even if they make a claim of bad intel or “I was just following orders”, the extra twist of the knife in the no-quarters order is in of itself a fundamental illegal knife twist that prevents him from getting away with any “whoopsie daisy” defense.
I understand this. My question was, why it wasn’t illegal to shoot the ship in the first place.
It was. But, the illegality of the second action is absolute, while the first action is up for debate (by morons).
Yeah both is illegal. But they have an “excuse” for shooting the ahip by saying it’s smuggling drugs. None of that is confirmed or even close to any proof.
But as others have said shooting the sinking surviors is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a fucking warcrime.
Why not both?
But, really, it’s the order for no quarter that is the main course of illegality. Simply put, even if they make a claim of bad intel or “I was just following orders”, the extra twist of the knife in the no-quarters order is in of itself a fundamental illegal knife twist that prevents him from getting away with any “whoopsie daisy” defense.